Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Oversight and Investigations,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2001 VETERANS'

EMPLOYMENT AND

TRAINING SERVICE

Flexibility and

Accountability Needed

to Improve Service to

Veterans

GAO-01-928
Page i GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Veterans Receive Priority Service, but Effectiveness of Service Is

Unknown 8

VETS Does Not Adequately Oversee DVOP and LVER Grants 11

DVOP and LVER Programs Do Not Always Operate Well in OneStop Centers 16

Conclusions 20

Matters for Congressional Consideration 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 25

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor 27

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Related GAO Products 34

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Abbreviations

ADVET Assistant Director for Veterans’ Employment and Training

DVET Director for Veterans’ Employment and Training

DVOP Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program

ETA Employment and Training Administration

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

LVER Local Veterans’ Employment Representative

RAVET Regional Administrator for Veterans’ Employment and

Training

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VETS Veterans’ Employment and Training Service

VR&E Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment

WIA Workforce Investment Act
Page 1 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

September 12, 2001

The Honorable Steve Buyer

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight

 and Investigations

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Recognizing that the nation’s fragmented employment and training

programs were not serving job seekers or employers well, the Congress

enacted the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998. One of WIA’s goals

was to create a one-stop center system to help unify the services provided

by numerous programs and give states the flexibility to design services

better suited to local workforce needs. Veterans’ employment and training

programs, administered by the Department of Labor’s Veterans’

Employment and Training Service (VETS), are mandatory program

partners in this new one-stop center system.1

 VETS administers two

grants—for Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and

the Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) program—that

fund staff offering services for veterans. These staff work through states’

employment service offices or one-stop centers where public employment

and training services are available.2

 In fiscal year 2001, these grants funded

about 1,300 DVOP staff and about 1,200 LVER staff. However, the law that

governs VETS and these programs, U.S.C. title 38,3

 does not provide the

same flexibility introduced by WIA that allows states to determine the best

way to serve their customers. As a result, questions have arisen about the

 1

 WIA requires about 17 programs to provide services through the one-stop center system,

including veterans’ employment and training programs. These services are funded through

four separate federal agencies: Labor, Department of Education, Department of Health and

Human Services, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2

 While all states were making progress in implementing WIA, not all of them completed the

implementation steps by July 1, 2000, when WIA took effect. Some states offer public

employment and training services through one-stop centers, but there are also locations

where these services are available only at states’ employment service offices. For more

information see, Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of

TANF Services (GAO/T-HEHS-00-145, June 29, 2000).

3

 Federal laws pertaining to veterans’ issues are in title 38 of the U.S. Code. The portions

relating to the employment and training services are in chapters 41, 42, and 43.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

integration of the DVOP and LVER staff into the one-stop center

environment.

Because of the committee’s interest in improving the way employment

services are provided to veterans, you asked us to review the efficiency

and effectiveness of VETS’ administration of the DVOP and LVER

programs. Specifically, you asked us to assess (1) how well veterans are

provided employment services through the one-stop center, including the

DVOP and LVER staff; (2) how well VETS oversees the DVOP and LVER

grants awarded to states; and (3) how well the DVOP and LVER programs

operate within the new one-stop center environment. To obtain this

information, we visited five states where we interviewed VETS and state

employment agency officials, including local office managers and DVOP

and LVER staff. We conducted telephone interviews with employment

agency officials in 25 additional states, which included all other states with

more than 1 million veterans. The remaining states were selected through

a random sample. We also interviewed VETS officials in Washington, D.C.,

and regional offices and reviewed relevant documents. Finally, we

contacted officials from various veterans’ service organizations and the

National Association of State Workforce Agencies. We conducted our

work from October 2000 through July 2001 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards. For further information on our

scope and methodology, see appendix I.

While veterans received priority employment services at one-stop centers,

VETS does not currently collect appropriate data for determining the

effectiveness of these services, including subsequent job retention and

wages. VETS requires states to collect information on the number and type

of employment services provided to veterans relative to nonveterans, such

as the number placed in training or receiving counseling. States extract

this information from data that they collect for other employment and

training programs administered by Labor’s Employment and Training

Administration (ETA). Based on these data and interviews with state

officials, we found that veterans received more intensive services, and

received these services more readily, than nonveterans seeking services

through states’ employment service offices or one-stop centers—an

elevated level of service principally provided by DVOP and LVER staff. To

determine the effectiveness of these services, outcome data, such as

information on wages and job retention, is needed. Currently, the only

outcome data VETS requires states to collect are on the percentage of

veterans served who enter employment. Because state officials verify

employment rates in different ways, how this figure is determined varies

considerably from state to state. As discussed in our recent report on

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

VETS’ performance measures,4 VETS has proposed changes to its

performance measures such as requiring states to report job retention, but

it has not yet implemented the changes.

VETS’ oversight of the DVOP and LVER grants is inadequate. The agency

does not have a comprehensive system in place to manage state

performance in serving veterans. In order to oversee a program effectively,

an agency must have a performance management system that establishes

clear goals for those administering the program and provides incentives

for them to meet these goals. The agency must also gauge the quality of

service offered by the program and monitor the program’s progress.5

Despite recently proposed improvements to its performance measures,

VETS’ overall performance management system remains ineffective. VETS

does not communicate a consistent message to states on expected

performance, nor does it have meaningful incentives to encourage states

to perform well. As prescribed by the law, VETS has federal staff in every

state that monitors the DVOP and LVER grants, along with other duties.

However, this federal monitoring effort, which includes on-site evaluations

at every local office, is often unproductive for several reasons. Because

states generally also monitor performance at one-stop centers, including

the DVOP and LVER grants, VETS’ monitoring can be redundant. This

oversight results in confusion about the lines of authority between the

federal and state monitoring staff and the DVOP and LVER staff, who are

state employees. In addition, VETS’ monitoring is often inconsistent

because operational manuals are outdated, training of monitoring staff is

limited, and interpretations of the law differ among staff.

The DVOP and LVER programs do not always operate well within the onestop center environment because states do not have the flexibility to

design their services for veterans in a way that best meets the needs of

employers and veterans. The success of the one-stop system is dependent

on its ability to provide services that meet the changing employment needs

in local communities. However, the law does not provide the DVOP and

LVER programs with the flexibility to respond to changing needs. For

example, the law prescribes how DVOP and LVER staff is to be assigned to

 4 Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance Measurement

System Improved, But Further Changes Needed (GAO-01-580, May 15, 2001).

5

 For further information, see Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management

and Evaluation Tool, (GAO-01-131G, Feb. 2001). This tool, GAO’s Standards for Internal

Control in the Federal Government (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, Nov. 1999), and the Office of

Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control

(Revised June 21, 1995), should be used concurrently.
Page 4 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

local offices and does not give states the flexibility to move staff to

locations where state and local officials believe veterans could best be

served. This restriction may result in too many staff in some areas and too

few in other areas. Furthermore, the funding year for DVOP and LVER

programs does not coincide with the funding year for other employment

programs offered in the one-stop centers. Having Labor programs’ funding

streams on different schedules is burdensome for states and makes the

budgeting process more complicated. Moreover, VETS has not taken

adequate steps to adapt the DVOP and LVER programs to the one-stop

center environment. Instead, VETS officials said that they wanted to see

how states designed their one-stop centers before making any adjustments

to the DVOP and LVER programs.

To improve the way employment services are provided to veterans, we

present matters for congressional consideration and recommendations for

executive action. We suggest that the Congress consider how the DVOP

and LVER programs best fit in the current employment and training

system and take steps to ensure that these programs become more fully

integrated into this new environment. These may include updating the

applicable law to provide more flexibility or taking other actions such as

adjusting the funding cycle to correspond with that of other programs. We

also recommend that the Secretary of Labor implement a more effective

performance management system as soon as possible and take steps to

ensure that the DVOP and LVER programs are more effectively monitored.

VETS provided written comments on a draft of this report and generally

agreed with our findings and recommendations. These comments are

reprinted in appendix II.

The Congress established VETS in 1980 to carry out the national policy

that veterans receive priority employment and training opportunities.

Faced with growing long-term challenges of new service delivery systems,

an evolving labor market, and changing technology, VETS’ vision is to find

innovative ways to maximize the effectiveness of its efforts. Consequently,

VETS prepared strategic and performance plans in response to the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which was

intended to make agencies accountable for their performance.6

 VETS’

strategic plan states that it will seek new and effective means to help

 6

 GPRA requires agencies to identify their goals, measure performance, and report on the

degree to which those goals were met. Although not required by GPRA, the Secretary of

Labor directed its component agencies, such as VETS, to prepare their own strategic and

performance plans.

Background
Page 5 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

veterans compete successfully for better paying career jobs—helping them

get on a track that can provide improved income stability and growth

potential.

Although, in recent years, the Congress has not funded the number of

authorized DVOP and LVER staff positions, VETS provides states with

grants for DVOP and LVER staff according to the formula outlined in the

law.7

 These DVOP and LVER staff members, whose positions are federally

funded, are part of states’ public employment services and provide direct

employment services to eligible veterans. Under WIA, services provided by

DVOP and LVER staff are required to be included in each state’s approved

one-stop center system plan. WIA also requires the establishment of local

workforce investment areas and boards to locally oversee the new onestop center system. In the solicitation for DVOP and LVER grant

applications, VETS notes that local workforce investment boards are

ideally suited to developing services that best meet the needs of veterans

and employers who live and work in that area.

The DVOP and LVER grant agreements also include assurances by states

that DVOP and LVER staff members serve eligible veterans exclusively.

Under federal law, all employment service staff8

 must give priority to

serving veterans,9

 and the assignment of DVOP and LVER staff to local

offices does not relieve other employment and training program staff of

this requirement. The law prescribes various duties to DVOP and LVER

staff members that are intended to provide veterans with job search plans

and referrals and job training opportunities. DVOP specialists are required

to focus on locating veterans with disabilities and other barriers to

employment and assisting them in finding jobs and job training

 7

 For fiscal year 2001, VETS’ total appropriation was about $187 million, including $81.6

million for DVOP specialists and $77.3 million for LVER staff. The appropriation also

provided $2 million for the National Veterans’ Training Institute, and the remaining amount,

$26 million, was allocated for VETS’ administrative costs.

8

 The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 created a national system of public employment service

offices to provide employment services to individuals seeking employment and to

employers seeking workers. These employment service staff are now partners in the new

one-stop center system.

9

 The grant agreements provide the following order of priority for serving veterans: (1)

special disabled veterans, (2) Vietnam-era veterans, (3) disabled veterans other than special

disabled veterans, (4) all other veterans and eligible persons. Certain nonveterans, who are

dependents of veterans, are also eligible for priority service; these nonveterans are called

“eligible persons” and include, for example, the spouse of any person who died of a serviceconnected disability or the spouse of any person who has a total disability permanent in

nature resulting from a service-connected disability. For this report, we will use the term

“veterans” to include eligible people.
Page 6 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

opportunities. LVER staff members have the primary responsibility of

ensuring that veterans receive priority service from the employment and

training program staff. Both DVOP and LVER staff are required to assist

veterans in finding jobs. This assistance can range from help with needs,

such as writing a resume, to more comprehensive help, such as assessing

veterans’ skills and arranging training opportunities for veterans.

While the state-employed DVOP and LVER staff are the front-line

providers for services to veterans, VETS carries out its responsibilities, as

outlined in the law, through a nationwide network that includes regional

and state representation. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Veterans’ Employment and Training administers VETS’ activities through

regional administrators (RAVET) and directors (DVET) in each state, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In larger states,

an assistant director (ADVET) is appointed for every 250,000 veterans in

the state. These federally-paid VETS staff ensure that states carry out their

obligations to provide service to veterans, including the services provided

under the DVOP and LVER grants.

To ensure priority service to veterans, VETS expects states to provide

employment and training services to veterans at a rate exceeding the

service to nonveterans. For example, VETS requires that veterans receive

services at a rate 15 percent higher than nonveterans. Thus, if a state’s

placement rate for nonveterans was 10 percent, the placement rate for

veterans should be 11.5, or 15 percent higher than the nonveteran

placement rate. There are also higher expectations for serving Vietnam-era

veterans and disabled veterans.10 As required by the law, VETS must report

to the Congress on states’ performance in five service categories: (1)

veterans placed in or obtaining employment, (2) Vietnam-era veterans and

special disabled veterans placed in jobs on the Federal Contractor Job

Listing, (3) veterans counseled, (4) veterans placed in training, and (5)

veterans who received some reportable service. VETS has historically used

these same performance categories to measure state performance for

serving veterans at a higher rate than nonveterans. The data for these

performance categories is collected by states for the programs

administered by ETA. As required by the DVOP and LVER grant

agreements, the states then extract the relevant data for their reports to

VETS. The law also requires that states establish their own performance

 10 Vietnam-era veterans should be served at a rate 20 percent higher than nonveterans and

disabled veterans at a rate 25 percent higher. Placement rates for special disabled veterans

in jobs listed for federal contractors should also be 25 percent higher than the rate for

nonveterans.
Page 7 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

expectations, under VETS’ guidance, for their DVOP and LVER staff to

ensure that these staff are effectively utilized.

The Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans

Transition Assistance issued a report in 1999 that raised concerns about

the performance and effectiveness of VETS’ programs.11 The Congress

directed the Commission to review programs that provide benefits and

services to veterans and service members making the transition to civilian

life, which included the DVOP and LVER programs. The Commission

recommended that the Congress restructure employment assistance to

veterans in several ways. These suggested changes included: replacing the

current DVOP and LVER programs with two new programs, establishing

effective operational outcome measures for VETS, and revising the system

of priority for services to ensure priority service for veterans who most

need assistance in overcoming barriers to employment or who are making

their transition to civilian life. The Commission also questioned the

effectiveness of the administration and oversight of VETS’ programs,

calling for an independent audit of agency performance.

In our past reviews of VETS’ programs, we have recommended changes to

VETS’ performance measures and plans. In our most recent report,12 we

noted that VETS had proposed performance measures more in-line with

those established under WIA and focused more on what VETS’ programs

achieve and less on the number of services provided to veterans relative to

nonveterans. However, we reported that VETS still lacked measures to

gauge the effectiveness of services or whether more staff-intense services

helped veterans obtain jobs. While the law still stipulates that VETS is to

report to the Congress on the five service categories, according to its

proposed performance measures, VETS will no longer require that states

compare services provided to veterans with those provided to

nonveterans. This change is a positive step, but VETS officials said that the

implementation of these proposed measures did not occur in July 2001 as

planned, and will not be effective until July 1, 2002.

 11 Report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition

Assistance (Arlington, Va.: Jan. 14, 1999).

12 Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance Measurement

System Improved, But Further Changes Needed (GAO-O1-580, May 15, 2001).
Page 8 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

While veterans receive priority employment services at one-stop centers as

required under the law, the effectiveness of the services, as indicated by

the resulting employment, cannot be determined because VETS does not

collect sufficient data to measure the outcomes veterans achieve from

these services. State-gathered data and interviews with state officials

showed that veterans are receiving priority services at one-stop centers as

demonstrated by the higher rates of service for veterans compared to

those of nonveterans. While one-stop centers can provide priority services

to veterans in different ways, most do so primarily through the DVOP and

LVER staff. Since veterans have these dedicated staff to serve them, they

also received more intensive services, and received these services more

readily, than nonveterans. However, the effectiveness of these services is

unknown because VETS lacks adequate outcome data on job retention and

wages. The only outcome data available—the percentage of veterans

served who entered employment—are often inconsistent from state to

state.

On the basis of state data reported to VETS and interviews with state

officials, veterans receive priority employment services at one-stop

centers.13 To show that states are providing priority service to veterans,

VETS requires states to report data on the number and types of services

provided to veterans and nonveterans as well as the percentage of each

group served that enters employment. Data reported to VETS shows that

veterans generally receive employment services at a higher rate than

nonveterans. Other examples of priority service include not releasing new

job openings received from employers14 into the job database in order to

identify and contact qualified veterans before the universal population has

access to the information.15 Some state officials reported that they have

 13 Federal regulations require state employment service agencies to give veterans priority in

all employment and training services, including registration, counseling, referral to other

services, and job development.

14 ETA’s labor exchange services include job-listing services, which are activities performed

on behalf of employers. Employers may request assistance from public labor exchange

staff in placing their job openings, or “job orders,” on the state’s or one-stop centers’ jobs

database.

15 Due to increased use of the Internet to post jobs, it is not always helpful to the employer

or applicants to hold job orders. In an effort to be more “employer friendly” and avoid

posting a job to the one-stop job database after it has been posted elsewhere, some onestop centers do not hold job orders. In these states, one-stop center staff searches the

electronic job file daily and forwards announcements to qualified veteran applicants.

Veterans Receive

Priority Service, but

Effectiveness of

Service Is Unknown

Veterans Receive Priority

Service
Page 9 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

other special services exclusively for veterans, such as designated

computers or special information packets on available resources.

State and local officials reported that veterans also receive more intensive

services than nonveterans. For example, DVOP and LVER staff may

provide veterans individualized services the first day they come in, while

nonveterans are generally referred to self-service first. Veterans generally

gain access to intensive services, similar to those offered under WIA, such

as counseling and case management, more quickly than nonveterans

because DVOP and LVER staff have smaller caseloads than other

employment services staff and thus have the time to spend with

individuals. Veterans have better access to intensive services than

nonveterans because DVOP and LVER staff are funded independently of

WIA and are not subject to restrictions applicable to WIA-funded

programs.16 For example, veterans served by DVOP and LVER staff do not

have to receive basic services before obtaining intensive services.

While priority service can be provided in different ways depending on the

one-stop center, most state officials and one-stop center managers we

spoke with said that they primarily used DVOP and LVER staff to provide

priority services to veterans since these staff are dedicated to assisting

veterans exclusively. DVOP and LVER staff we spoke with said that they

tried to talk to every veteran at least once because they were better able

than other staff to identify barriers to employment and were able to

provide veterans with information about other benefits available to them.

However, in some of the one-stop centers we visited, only veterans

determined to have employment barriers were referred to the DVOP and

LVER staff, while others were referred to self-service or other one-stop

center staff. In offices with no DVOP and LVER staff, veterans generally

received one-on-one service from any available employment service staff,

and appointments could be made with DVOP or LVER staff in other

offices.

According to many state officials as well as DVOP and LVER staff, the

DVOP and LVER staff members relate better to veterans because they are

 16 Moreover, where funding is limited, recipients of public assistance and other low-income

individuals must receive priority access to WIA-funded intensive services and training.

Because DVOP and LVER staff members are not WIA-funded, they may provide intensive

services for any eligible veteran without regard to this provision.
Page 10 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

veterans themselves.17 For example, because they are familiar with the

processes at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), they can help

veterans file disability claims with the VA or help them to receive the

appropriate disability benefits. The DVOP and LVER staff also has broader

knowledge of veterans’ issues than other one-stop center staff, partly

because of their training at the National Veterans’ Training Institute,

instruction that included training in case management. DVOP and LVER

staff are required to network with veterans’ groups and other service

providers and, therefore, are better able to refer veterans to services and

resources available to them outside the one-stop center. DVOP staff

members also work on the development of employment opportunities for

their disabled clients and perform outreach to identify veterans; something

that other employment services staff members do not have time to do.

While veterans receive more services and receive these services more

quickly than nonveterans, the effectiveness of these services cannot be

determined. VETS currently lacks sufficient employment outcome data,

such as the wages and job retention of veterans served who obtain jobs,

which would indicate whether services provided to veterans were

effective. VETS has proposed collecting data on employment outcomes,

similar to those collected by ETA and WIA programs, and the agency has

also recommended that states use unemployment insurance wage records

to collect outcome data. However, these improvements have not yet been

implemented, partly because the data that states report to VETS is

extracted from data collected for other federal employment and training

programs. To avoid requiring states to collect separate data, VETS is

dependent on ETA to change the type of data it collects.

The only outcome data that states currently report to VETS—the

percentage of veterans entering employment after registering for

employment services—is collected inconsistently. While some states

compare their employment service registration records with

unemployment insurance wage records, others may simply call employers

for employment verification or send postcards or letters to customers

asking whether they have obtained employment. States may also use a

combination of these approaches. In some states where follow-up was by

telephone or mail, state officials reported that the DVOP and LVER staff

 17 The law prescribes eligibility requirements for states in hiring DVOP and LVER staff

based on their veteran status. For example, first preference for hiring DVOP specialists is

given to qualified disabled veterans, and first preference for hiring LVER staff is given to

qualified veterans with service-related disabilities.

Effectiveness of Service

Cannot Currently Be

Determined
Page 11 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

had more time to follow-up with their customers than other employment

and training staff, resulting in more complete employment data for

veterans. Furthermore, in past reviews, we have pointed out that the use

of relative standards comparing the percentage of veterans entering

employment with that of nonveterans, results in states with poor levels of

service to nonveterans being held to lower standards for service to

veterans than states with better overall performance.18

In addition, states and local workforce investment areas choose to register

customers at different stages of the job search process, thus the

percentage of “registered” veterans entering employment may differ based

on when they were required to register. In some areas, customers register

to use any service, including self-service; in other areas they are only

required to register when using staff-assisted services. Those who find

employment before being registered are not counted as having entered

employment after using self-service resources available through the onestop center. Consequently, the reported percentage of veterans served

who entered employment is not comparable from state to state.

Poor performance management hinders VETS’ oversight of the DVOP and

LVER grants. The agency does not have a comprehensive system in place

to manage state performance in serving veterans. VETS does not

effectively communicate its expectations to states about performance, nor

does it have meaningful incentives to encourage states to perform well. In

addition, VETS’ efforts to target services to specific categories of veterans

are unfocused. Furthermore, VETS is required by law to have federal staff

in every state and to conduct annual on-site evaluations at every local

office, but this monitoring is often unproductive.

In order to oversee a program effectively, an agency must have a

management system that establishes clear goals for those administering

the program. Furthermore, an agency must develop performance measures

that allow for the determination of whether the goals are being met. VETS

does not have such a management system. The agency does not have clear

goals that it communicates to states or that it tracks with outcome data.

 18 While VETS has proposed eliminating this relative comparison, the agency is still

required by law to report on this comparison to the Congress in its annual report.

VETS Does Not

Adequately Oversee

DVOP and LVER

Grants

VETS Does Not Effectively

Communicate Its Goals or

Provide Incentives for

Meeting Performance

Goals
Page 12 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

VETS’ goals are not reflected by the performance measures that the

agency uses to monitor state performance. For example, one agency goal

is to provide high-quality case management to veterans, but the agency has

no state performance measures for assessing the quality of case

management for veterans.19 Instead, the performance measure is the

percentage of veterans served who enter employment. Because VETS’

performance measures do not reflect the agency’s goals, the agency

cannot track how well its goals are being met. Furthermore, current

performance measures do not affect how services are delivered to

veterans. Several one-stop managers and DVOP and LVER staff said that

they provide services that veterans need without concentrating on the

required performance measures, hoping that the services meet or exceed

the measures. Although VETS is working to improve its performance

measures, it still lacks a comprehensive system to manage performance.

VETS’ efforts to ensure that intensive services are focused on those

veterans most in need by “targeting” specific groups of veterans are

unfocused. In its strategic plan, the agency, for case management and

intensive services, targets disabled veterans, minority veterans, female

veterans, recently separated veterans, veterans with significant barriers to

employment, special disabled veterans, homeless veterans, veterans

provided vocational rehabilitation under the VA,20 and veterans who served

on active duty in the armed forces under certain circumstances. This

includes nearly all veterans, and not necessarily those most in need of

service. The numerous categories of targeted veterans could result in the

vast majority of veterans being targeted for case management. A VETS

official said that the focus for service should be on veterans with the

greatest needs as determined by individual assessments because groups

targeted on a national level do not necessarily correlate to the needs of

veterans in particular states or local areas.

 19 Case management involves preparing comprehensive employment plans, ensuring access

to necessary training and supportive services, and providing support during program

participation and after job placement.

20 Vocational rehabilitation service to veterans is a joint program between VETS and the

VA. The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) is a program within the VA

that assists veterans with service-related injuries to achieve suitable employment or

enhance their ability to function independently at home and in the community. VR&E

provides vocational and educational guidance and counseling to assist service-members,

veterans, and certain veterans’ dependents in selecting an appropriate career goal and

training institution.
Page 13 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Unnecessary performance measures often add to DVOP and LVER work,

without measuring quality of service to veterans. Some state and VETS

officials we spoke with expressed concern about having performance

measures that specifically focus on service to Vietnam-era veterans. The

law requires VETS to report to the Congress on states’ service to Vietnamera veterans; consequently, VETS includes this service as a performance

goal. Since these veterans make up such a small percentage of the

workforce, due in part to the fact that many are at or near retirement age

and may not be seeking employment, DVOP and LVER staff may spend

much of their time trying to identify and serve this group of veterans in

order to meet VETS’ performance goals. In fact, one state VETS official,

who is also a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, said that the time-consuming

service to Vietnam-era veterans might be a distraction to DVOP and LVER

staff.

Some state officials also identified one of VETS’ performance measures

that should be eliminated. VETS requires that Vietnam-era veterans,

special disabled veterans, and veterans who served on active duty under

certain circumstances are placed in jobs on the Federal Contractor Job

Listing. To do this, in addition to identifying qualified job candidates from

this pool of particular group of veterans, DVOP and LVER staff must

monitor local federal contractors to make sure that they are listing their

job opportunities with the one-stop centers and hiring these veterans.

Because the presence of federal contractors in a given state or local area is

unpredictable and is determined by the federal agencies awarding

contracts, state employment service officials said the federal contractor

measure should be eliminated. It is the responsibility of contractors to list

their job openings, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs is responsible for ensuring that all companies conducting

business with the federal government list their jobs with state employment

service offices and take affirmative action to hire qualified veterans.

Eliminating this performance measure would allow DVOP and LVER staff

members more time to focus on the employment needs of individual

veterans rather than compliance issues under the purview of another

federal agency.

Furthermore, although VETS has proposed improved performance

measures, its performance management system still lacks incentives to

encourage states to meet performance goals. Presently, states are neither

rewarded for meeting or exceeding their performance measures, nor

penalized for failing to meet these measures. If a state fails to meet its

performance measures, VETS simply requires the state to develop a

corrective action plan to address the deficiencies in that state. There are

no financial repercussions for states not meeting their performance
Page 14 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

measures, and states will not lose funding for failing to adequately serve

veterans. One VETS official said that he would never take funds away from

a state for not meeting performance measures because ultimately this

would deny services to veterans. In addition, there is little in the way of

incentives to encourage fiscal compliance with the grants. If a state

overspends DVOP or LVER funds, state officials can submit a grant

modification requesting additional funds.21 A VETS official noted that if the

DVOP and LVER grants could be awarded through a competitive bid

process within states rather than awarded directly to states’ employment

service agencies as required by law, the grantees might have more

incentive to provide better services to veterans.

VETS’ monitoring of the DVOP and LVER grants is often unproductive. It

is excessive and has little effect on service. As mandated by law, VETS has

an extensive field structure—with federal staff in every state—to monitor

the DVOP and LVER programs. This federal oversight often duplicates

state oversight and confuses the lines of authority for DVOP and LVER

staff. Furthermore, VETS’ oversight may be inconsistent due in part to

outdated manuals, limited training, and the lack of clear guidance from the

national office.

The law mandates VETS’ field structure, prescribing that each state have

federal VETS staff—positions ranging from the director to office support

staff. This includes about 185 field staff members in state DVET offices

and about 37 field staff members in regional RAVET offices. In addition to

their other duties not related to the grants, these federal VETS staff

members estimated that they collectively spend about half of their time

administering the DVOP and LVER grants.22 The federal VETS staff

annually reviews every employment service office or one-stop center

where DVOP and LVER staff are located. This annual review, called the

Local Employment Service Office evaluation, includes an evaluation of

office performance based on the review of specific documents and a site

visit.

 21 If a state has excess funds in the DVOP or LVER grants, VETS reallocates the money to

other states requesting additional funds. Last year, about $3 million was received from

states that did not use all of their DVOP and LVER funds for staff. VETS then reallocated

these funds to states that had requested additional funding. States had actually requested

more than this amount—about $5 million.

22 VETS staff members are also responsible for enforcing veterans’ preference and

reemployment rights for veterans, Reservists, and National Guard members.

VETS’ Monitoring Is Often

Unproductive
Page 15 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

While some state employment agency officials believe that the DVET

presence as a VETS monitor serves as a reminder of veterans’ priority and

provides immediate technical assistance, other state officials we

interviewed believe that this presence is unnecessary and excessive. Many

state officials believe that the DVOP and LVER grants are “micromanaged.” For example, one state official said that she receives weekly

letters, daily visits, and constant phone calls from the DVET but receives

very little to no communication from other employment and training

programs. She did not believe that all of this contact and monitoring

improved services to veterans. An official in another state pointed out that

there is one monitor for every million dollars of grant money the state

receives and that VETS staff are highly involved at the operational level,

thus making the program feel “policed.”

VETS’ annual on-site evaluations of employment services offices that we

observed or whose reports we reviewed produced few substantive

findings. Furthermore, according to some state officials, these evaluations

have little or no effect on how DVOP and LVER staff members perform

their duties. Some federal monitoring staff agree that the evaluations are

not as effective as they could be because VETS has little authority to

influence the way DVOP and LVER staff work at the state and local level.

This monitoring may also be unnecessary for those offices that exceed

their performance expectations.

States generally perform their own monitoring and oversight of one-stop

centers, including the services provided to veterans by DVOP and LVER

staff. Most state officials we interviewed had some state oversight to

monitor employment services, which included the DVOP and LVER grants.

In addition, as permitted under the LVER grants, states generally had a

state veterans’ coordinator, paid by the LVER grant funds, to oversee the

programs. For example, one state’s veterans’ coordinator reviews several

one-stop centers every quarter, as well as meets initially with all new

DVOP and LVER staff. In another state, the employment services

department has field supervisors who perform local office reviews and

who review the quarterly reports from each one-stop regarding services to

veterans. However, VETS officials questioned the adequacy of the state

monitoring and stressed the necessity for the federal oversight by VETS

staff to make sure that veterans are provided priority employment

services.

Because there are two monitoring entities—federal and state—the lines of

authority for the DVOP and LVER staff may be unclear and confusing. In

some cases, the DVOP and LVER staff, who are state employees, go

directly to the federal officials, the DVET and his or her staff, with
Page 16 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

problems and questions rather than discussing these issues with their state

supervisors. When DVOP and LVER staff directly contact the federal VETS

monitors, they are bypassing their state supervisors and circumventing

state procedures. According to state employment officials, federal

officials, in their efforts to monitor one-stop centers, may sometimes

provide information that contradicts state policies.

Further confusion exists when the DVET bypasses state officials to

communicate directly with DVOP and LVER staff. State employment

officials believe that the DVET should contact the grantee—the state—

directly and not bypass the state officials. When presented with questions

from the DVET, DVOP and LVER staff may be in an awkward situation. If

they give VETS officials the information they requested, they could be

reprimanded by state employment officials for not following state

procedures. If they tell the VETS officials to obtain the information from

the state employment officials, DVOP and LVER staff might offend the

VETS staff who monitors their work.

In addition to duplicating state monitoring efforts, the evaluations that

federal staff conducts may be inconsistent both within and between states

because the manuals that guide their efforts are outdated and the training

they receive is not adequate. The evaluation manual, published by the

national VETS office, has not been updated since 1989 even though WIA

has introduced changes to the employment service delivery system. While

some federal monitors use this manual, directors in some regions and

individual states have developed new guidelines. Consequently,

evaluations are conducted using different criteria depending on the region

and state. Some training exists for the federal monitoring staff, but the

training is not adequate because, according to a VETS official, it is too

focused on finding fault rather than sharing information on innovative

ways to serve veterans. The training emphasizes grant management and

compliance audits rather than focusing on how to assist and work with

states to improve employment services to veterans.

The DVOP and LVER grant programs do not always operate well in onestop centers, according to the state and local officials we interviewed.

With the passage of WIA, states are now allowed the flexibility to meet the

employment and training needs of their populations through multiple

programs offered through one-stop centers nationwide. However, DVOP

and LVER programs operate under a law established prior to WIA. This

law, which outlines two staffing grants with separate rules and funding, is

DVOP and LVER

Programs Do Not

Always Operate Well

in One-Stop Centers
Page 17 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

very prescriptive in terms of which veterans are eligible for services and

excludes, for example, persons who have served in the Reserves23 or

National Guard. The funding year for DVOP and LVER programs does not

coincide with the funding year for other employment programs offered in

the one-stop centers and having Labor programs’ funding streams on

different schedules is burdensome. In addition, VETS has not taken

adequate steps to adjust the DVOP and LVER programs to the one-stop

center environment. Instead, VETS officials said that they were waiting to

see how states design their one-stop centers before making any

adjustments.

DVOP and LVER grant programs lack the flexibility states need to

effectively meet the needs of veterans through one-stop centers. For

instance, the assignment of DVOP and LVER staff to local offices is largely

prescribed by the law and allows little variation for state or local office

needs and circumstances. LVER staff is assigned to local offices based on

the number of veterans registered for assistance at each local office.24 For

the DVOP program, the law stipulates that at least 25 percent of the staff

should be located at facilities outside of the employment service system

such as veterans’ hospitals or community colleges. The Secretary of Labor

can waive this requirement only if at least 20 percent of DVOP staff is

located at facilities outside of the employment service system nationwide.

These requirements may no longer be appropriate as the employment and

training environment changes. Since the passage of WIA, many of the

locations that were once considered facilities outside the employment

service system are now considered part of that system. One state official

noted that many community colleges with DVOP staff are now considered

to be one-stop employment and training centers. While the state met the

assignment requirement before WIA, it may have to move this staff to new

locations outside the system simply to comply with the requirement of the

DVOP grant.

Smaller employment services offices or one-stop centers may have a more

difficult time meeting the employment needs of their veterans because of

 23 Except for Reservists who served on active duty during a period of war or under certain

other circumstances.

24 As nearly as practical, one full-time LVER is assigned to each local employment service

office at which at least 1,100 eligible veterans and eligible persons are registered for

assistance, one additional full-time LVER is assigned to each office for each 1,500 eligible

persons above 1,100, and one half-time LVER is assigned to each office at which at least

350 but less than 1,100 eligible veterans and eligible persons are registered for assistance.

DVOP and LVER Programs

Lack Flexibility
Page 18 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

the restrictions in the law. Although the LVER grant allows smaller

locations to have a half-time LVER position, VETS does not allow this

same flexibility for the DVOP program. Smaller offices in rural or sparsely

populated areas that cannot justify a full-time DVOP position would not

benefit from the services provided by a DVOP staff member. For instance,

a state official noted that if half-time DVOP staff were permitted, this

would broaden service to veterans.

The law also specifies the separate duties for DVOP and LVER staff.

According to the law, DVOP staff are to carry out 10 duties that include the

following: promoting the development of jobs for veterans through

contacts with employers, performing outreach activities to locate veterans

in need of assistance, and carrying out other duties to promote the

development of entry-level and career job opportunities for such veterans.

LVER staff are to carry out 12 duties that include: functionally supervising

services to veterans provided by the local employment service staff,

providing employment assistance to veterans, and encouraging employers

to hire eligible veterans. LVER staff must also provide quarterly reports to

the local office manager and the state DVET regarding compliance with

federal law and regulations concerning special services and priorities for

veterans. Although there are some differences between the duties of DVOP

and LVER staff, the staff members we visited generally perform similar

duties. While the law makes distinctions between DVOP and LVER staff, a

VETS official said that, in reality, they perform many of the same duties.

The separate funding streams for the DVOP and LVER grants provide

states with little discretion in staffing. If a state does not spend all of its

grant money, states return the extra funding and VETS redistributes it to

states that request additional funding; however, states are not allowed to

transfer money from one grant to another. For example, a state that

overspends in its DVOP program but spends less than its allocation in the

LVER program would have to use other funds to cover the amount

overspent in the DVOP program, and VETS would take back the additional

LVER grant money. The state may request more money from VETS for its

DVOP program, but there is no guarantee that it will get the additional

funding.

Furthermore, DVOP and LVER staff members are not allowed to serve

certain individuals who may qualify for veteran services under other

employment and training programs. The law governing the DVOP and

LVER programs defines veterans eligible for employment assistance more

narrowly than WIA or VETS for its other veterans’ activities. WIA defines a

veteran more broadly as an individual who served in the active military,

naval, or air service. VETS, as an agency, also assists a broadly defined
Page 19 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

group, which includes veterans, Reservists, and National Guard members.

However, for the DVOP and LVER program, the law restricts the

population of eligible veterans to those who served on active duty for

more than 180 days. Because of this more restricted definition of an

eligible veteran in the applicable law, DVOP and LVER staff are not

allowed to serve veterans who were on active duty for 180 days or less,

and they are not permitted to serve Reservists25 or National Guard

members. One state official explained that there is a large and growing

number of Reservists and National Guard members in his state, but fewer

veterans because there are no military bases where service members are

discharged. Because of the more restrictive definition for veterans, DVOP

and LVER staff are not allowed to serve these Reservists or members of

the National Guard in that state. This narrow definition does not permit

states the flexibility to use DVOP and LVER staff to serve persons that are

considered veterans under WIA or persons who VETS would help in

securing employment, such as Reservists and National Guard members.

VETS appears to be taking a reactive rather than a proactive approach to

adapting to the one-stop center environment. For example, instead of

coordinating with other programs to determine how best to fit the DVOP

and LVER programs into the one-stop system, VETS’ headquarters officials

reported that they are waiting to see how states implement their programs

and will decide afterwards how to integrate the staff or adjust their

programs. While VETS implemented, in 1997, a pilot project in several

states to test new ways of measuring state performance in providing

employment assistance to veterans, the agency has not yet implemented

changes based on these initiatives.

VETS has required states to sign an agreement to ensure that veterans will

continue to receive priority services and that the DVOP and LVER staff

will continue to assume duties very similar to those they had in the

employment services system. However, these individual agreements with

states were all very similar and did not contain any information about

specific ways that DVOP and LVER staff might serve veterans within this

new environment. Furthermore, VETS has not developed policies and

procedures for operating within the one-stop system or adequately shared

innovative ways to help veterans find and retain jobs. Because of these

outdated policies and procedures, DVOP and LVER staff in many states

may continue to operate separately as if they were in the old employment

 25 Except for Reservists who served on active duty during a period of war or under certain

other circumstances.

VETS Has Not Adequately

Adapted to the One-Stop

Center Environment
Page 20 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

services system and fail to adapt to the new one-stop center environment

where employment and training programs are expected to be integrated.

According to one-stop managers we interviewed, this lack of integration

may diminish services to veterans. For example, the DVOP and LVER staff

may be unaware of all the programs and services offered through the onestop.

VETS has not addressed the fact that, unlike the DVOP and LVER staff, the

one-stop center is designed to serve all customers. In order to create onestop centers that serve all customers through seamless delivery of

services, some federal, state, and local officials have developed creative

ways of integrating services. For example, one DVET allows the DVOP and

LVER staff in his state to serve nonveterans 2 percent of their time. This

flexibility allows DVOP and LVER staff to have contact with the universal

population in certain circumstances. If a DVOP staff member is the only

bilingual staff member in the office, he or she may assist a customer who

does not speak English without being reprimanded for serving a

nonveteran. However, this flexibility is not universally permitted by the

DVET staff, nor has VETS endorsed this concept.

The funding year for DVOP and LVER programs does not coincide with the

funding year for other employment programs offered in the one-stop

centers, another sign that the DVOP and LVER grants have not been fully

integrated into the one-stop environment. The appropriation to fund the

DVOP and LVER grants is made available on a federal fiscal year basis

(October 1 through September 30), while other employment programs and

states operate on a program year basis (July 1 through June 30). Having

Labor programs’ funding streams on different schedules is burdensome for

states and makes the budgeting process more complicated. One state

official explained that information on the other major federal grants, such

as Wagner-Peyser funding to support employment service staff, is made

available on a program year basis, which allows states enough time to plan

for their start date. However, the DVOP and LVER grants are made on the

federal fiscal year basis, so the funds are not appropriated until October or

later, causing problems or delays in state planning.

While the Congress has clearly defined employment service to veterans as

a national responsibility, the law has not been updated to reflect the recent

changes in the employment and training service delivery system

introduced by WIA. The prescriptive nature of the law also creates a onesize-fits-all approach for service delivery, mandating many of the DVOP

and LVER program activities and requirements. This approach is

ineffective because it does not account for the fact that each state and

Conclusions
Page 21 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

one-stop center may have a different approach to satisfying the needs of

local employers as well as different types of veterans who may need

employment assistance. Although the law stipulates separate roles and

responsibilities for DVOP and LVER staff, they perform similar duties and

may not need to be separately funded. The law that governs VETS also

stipulates how grant funds and staff must be allocated as well as how the

grants should be monitored. These requirements hamper VETS’ ability to

consider alternative ways of administering or overseeing the grants.

Furthermore, the law requires that VETS report annually on states’

performance for serving veterans relative to serving nonveterans, which

may not be a good indicator if a state serves its nonveteran population

poorly. The law also requires VETS to report on requirements pertaining to

the Federal Contractor Job Listing and this detracts DVOP and LVER staff

members from serving veterans.

While VETS planned to find innovative ways to assist veterans with

employment, it has not been proactive in helping DVOP and LVER staff

become an integral part of the one-stop center environment. The new onestop center system, while giving veterans priority for employment

services, gives states flexibility in planning and implementing employment

and training systems and holds them accountable for performance.

However, VETS has not taken steps to adjust to this new environment. The

agency has not updated its oversight guidelines or staff training

procedures to ensure consistent and effective monitoring of the DVOP and

LVER programs within the one-stop centers. VETS has not established

clear performance goals for states, nor has it given states the flexibility to

decide how best to serve their veteran population. While VETS has

proposed ways of improving performance measures, these measures have

not yet been implemented. VETS has not proposed any incentives to hold

states accountable for meeting performance goals.

We suggest that the Congress consider how the DVOP and LVER programs

best fit in the current employment and training system and take steps to

ensure that these programs are able to be more fully integrated into this

new environment. While veterans’ employment service is clearly a national

responsibility, the Congress should consider updating the law to provide

more flexibility and improved accountability and taking other actions,

such as adjusting the DVOP and LVER grant funding cycle to correspond

with that of other programs. The Congress should consider revising title 38

to

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration
Page 22 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

• provide states and local offices more discretion to decide where to locate

DVOP and LVER staff and provide states the discretion to have half-time

DVOP positions;

• allow VETS and/or states the flexibility to better define the roles and

responsibilities of staff serving veterans instead of including these duties

in the law;

• combine the DVOP and LVER grant programs into one staffing grant to

better meet states’ needs for serving veterans;

• provide VETS with the flexibility to consider alternative ways to improve

administration and oversight of the staffing grants, for example,

eliminating the prescriptive requirements for monitoring DVOP and LVER

grants;

• eliminate the requirement that VETS report to the Congress a comparison

of the job placement rate of veterans with that of nonveterans; and

• eliminate the requirement that VETS report on Federal Contractor Job

Listings.

The Congress should also consider making the DVOP and LVER grant

funding cycle consistent with that of other employment and training

programs.

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor establish more effective

management and monitoring of the DVOP and LVER programs.

Specifically, the Secretary of Labor should direct VETS to

• specify performance goals and expectations for serving veterans and allow

states the flexibility to present a plan for how they intend to meet these

goals and expectations;

• implement, as soon as possible, a performance measurement system that

holds states accountable, reflects the agency’s goals and expectations, and

defines how the performance data should be collected to ensure accuracy

and reliability;

• implement a performance management system for the state grantees that

provides incentives for meeting goals and penalties, beyond corrective

action plans, for not meeting goals; and

• update oversight guidelines and improve staff training to ensure consistent

monitoring of DVOP and LVER programs in one-stop centers.

Recommendations for

Executive Action
Page 23 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

We provided VETS with the opportunity to comment on a draft of this

report. VETS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations and

had two concerns about our matters for congressional consideration.

Although VETS recognizes that title 38 is prescriptive and limits the

agency’s flexibility to provide different approaches for more innovative

services to veterans, it had concerns about having half-time DVOP staff

positions and combining the two DVOP and LVER grants into a single

staffing grant. VETS said that if these matters receive further

consideration, it would discuss its concerns with the appropriate

congressional committee. VETS’ comments appear in appendix II.

VETS said that measuring the effectiveness of services provided to

veterans in one-stop centers is difficult and that the agency is working

with others in the Department of Labor to develop data collection

strategies supporting its proposed performance measures. VETS said that

this new performance measurement system would not be effective until

July 1, 2002. Furthermore, VETS intends to work with states to develop

appropriate performance measures for the DVOP and LVER grants and

will issue prototype performance standards that states may use for DVOP

and LVER staff.

In terms of its oversight of the DVOP and LVER grants, VETS agreed that

improved management and monitoring of the grants is needed. VETS said

that it would redouble its efforts to ensure that effective communication

between its staff and DVOP and LVER staff is accomplished without

compromising states’ supervisory structure. VETS plans to develop a new

grant review guide and a grants management course. VETS said that its

management control system parallels its performance plan. According to

VETS, this system tracks program activities, performance outcomes, and

corrective actions initiated. However, we found that VETS does not use

this information to hold states accountable. VETS also said that incentives

to encourage states to meet performance goals would be useful but said

there are no discretionary funds available. In this case, we would urge the

agency to consider the use of nonmonetary incentives.

In addition, VETS said that agreements with each state about how DVOP

and LVER staff would be integrated into the one-stop delivery system

agency were developed prior to implementing WIA. We determined that

these individual state agreements ensured that veterans would continue to

receive priority services and that the DVOP and LVER staff would

continue to assume duties akin to those they had prior to WIA. However,

these agreements did not contain any information about specific ways that

DVOP and LVER staff might serve veterans within the new environment.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 24 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

We found that DVOP and LVER programs do not always operate well in

one-stop centers.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its

issue date. At that time, we will then send copies to the Secretary of Labor

and the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We will also

make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-7215 or Joan T. Mahagan at (617) 565-7532. Key contributors

to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Sigurd R. Nilsen

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

In designing our study, we obtained legislation, regulations, and Veterans

Employment and Training Service (VETS) directives regarding the

Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local

Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) staffing grants to states. We

interviewed VETS officials in Washington, D.C., responsible for

administering the grants and VETS staff at the Regional Lead Center in

Chicago, Illinois, who provided us with documentation regarding VETS’

strategic plan and general guidance for the DVOP and LVER staffing

grants. To obtain additional information about the oversight of the staffing

grants, we also conducted telephone interviews with all of VETS’ regional

administrators and interviewed the state directors and other federal VETS

staff in five states that we visited.

To obtain information on how DVOP and LVER staff are integrated into

the one-stop center environment, we interviewed state employment

agency officials in 30 states. For five states—Connecticut, Florida, Ohio,

Oregon, and Texas—we conducted site visits. For the remaining 25 states,

we conducted telephone interviews with state employment officials. To

identify the states for our telephone interviews, we developed a stratified

random sample. We first identified all states with a veteran population

over 1 million. These states included California, Florida, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and Texas. Since Florida, Ohio, and Texas were states

where we conducted site visits, we conducted in-person interviews with

the state officials rather than telephone interviews. Thus, the states with

veteran populations over 1 million that we included for telephone

interviews were California, New York, and Pennsylvania. For the

remaining states, we randomly selected Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, the

District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,

Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and

Wyoming for telephone interviews.

To understand how DVOP and LVER grants are integrated in the one-stop

system at the state level, we visited five states to provide a more in-depth

analysis. We selected Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas to

provide a mix of different geographic locations, size of veteran

populations, and entered employment rates for veterans as well as a both

public and privatized service providers. The five states were located in five

different VETS regions; the veterans populations varied from about

313,000 in Connecticut to about 1,652,000 in Florida; and the entered

employment rates for veterans served in public employment offices ranged

from 45.8 percent in Texas to 18.5 percent in Ohio. In the five states, we

interviewed state VETS directors as well as state employment agency

officials, local office managers, and DVOP and LVER staff. We visited a

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

total of 17 local offices in the five states and interviewed a total of 39

DVOP and LVER staff at these locations, which were representative of

both urban and more rural areas. At the local offices, we also observed

operations. In addition, where appropriate, we interviewed local

workforce board members.

We conducted telephone interviews with five Veterans’ Service

Organizations—AMVETS, the American Legion, Disabled American

Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam Veterans of America—to

obtain their views on the DVOP and LVER staffing grants. We also

contacted officials from the National Association of State Workforce

Agencies (formerly known as the Interstate Conference on Employment

Security Agencies, Inc.) and met with its Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

We conducted our work from October 2000 through July 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 27 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Labor
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 28 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 29 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 30 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 31 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 32 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, (202) 512-7215

Joan T. Mahagan, Assistant Director, (617) 565-7532.

In addition to those named above, Jonathan H. Barker, Richard P.

Burkard, Lara L. Carreon, Betty S. Clark, Corinna A. Nicolaou, Paul R.

Schearf, Salvatore F. Sorbello, Jr., and James P. Wright made key

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 34 GAO-01-928 Employment Service to Veterans

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Further Changes Needed to

Strengthen Its Performance Measurement System (GAO-01-757T, June 7,

2001).

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance

Measurement System Improved, But Further Changes Needed (GAO-01-

580, May 15, 2001).

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Better Planning Needed to

Address Future Needs (GAO/T-HEHS-00-206, Sept. 27, 2000).

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance

Plans Lack Vision and Clarity (GAO/T-HEHS-99-177, July 29, 1999).

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal

Year 1999 Performance Plan (GAO/HEHS-98-240R, Sept. 30, 1998).

Veterans’ Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor

Department Programs (GAO/HEHS-98-7, Oct. 17, 1997).

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Focusing on Program

Results to Improve Agency Performance (GAO/T-HEHS-97-129, May 7,

1997).

Related GAO Products

(205519)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs