United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

VETERANS’ 

EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Labor Could Improve 

Information on 

Reemployment 

Services, Outcomes, 

and Program Impact 

May 2007 

 

GAO-07-594 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2007

VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Labor Could Improve Information on 

Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and 

Program Impact 

Highlights of GAO-07-594, a report to 

congressional committees 

In 2002, Congress enacted the Jobs 

for Veterans Act (JVA), which 

modified two Department of Labor

(Labor) programs that specifically 

target veteran job seekers: the

Disabled Veterans’ Outreach

Program (DVOP) and the Local 

Veterans’ Employment

Representative (LVER) program. 

However, questions have been 

raised about the adequacy of 

performance information on

services to veterans by these and

other employment programs. In

this report, GAO examined (1) the

extent to which DVOP and LVER 

performance information reflects 

services and outcomes for

veterans; (2) the extent to which

performance information on

veterans paints a clear picture of 

their use of one-stop services; and 

(3) what Labor is doing to improve 

the quality of performance data and 

better understand program impact 

and outcomes for veterans.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making a number of

recommendations to improve the 

performance measurement system

for the DVOP and LVER programs 

and to better understand services 

and their impact for job seekers in 

the one-stop system, including 

veterans. 

 

Labor generally agreed with the 

report’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. 

Performance information for the DVOP and LVER programs provides some 

sense of services and outcomes for veterans, but is weakened by several

factors. In July 2005, Labor adopted new performance measures for the 

programs, but not all have been fully implemented. For example, states are 

held accountable for helping veterans get and keep jobs, but are not yet held 

accountable for their average earnings once employed, as they are for other 

programs. Additionally, having separate performance measures for the 

DVOP and LVER programs fails to acknowledge the similarity of the 

populations they serve and duties they perform. Furthermore, it is difficult to 

assess outcomes over time or across states because of frequent changes in 

reporting requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend data.

Labor’s data on veteran job seekers paint an unclear picture of their use of 

other employment and training services in the one-stop system, despite the 

use of common performance measures across programs. Although many 

veterans use services other than those provided by the DVOP and LVER 

programs, key employment programs vary in how well their data on veteran 

job seekers are shared across programs, making it difficult to know how 

many veterans are served. In addition, statutory differences in the definitions 

of veterans hinder efforts to standardize data across employment programs. 

Moreover, Labor has no means of assessing whether priority of service for 

veterans has been implemented in various employment programs. 

Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data and 

better understand outcomes for veterans. For example, Labor requires states 

to validate key performance data. Labor has also planned an integrated data 

reporting system that would track individual veterans’ progress through the 

one-stop system. However, states have raised concerns about the timelines 

and its current implementation date is unclear. Furthermore, while outcome 

information on veterans is helpful, it cannot measure whether the outcomes 

are due to the program or other factors. While Labor has sponsored research 

on services to veterans, it has not yet conducted the impact evaluation 

required by law to assess the effectiveness of one-stop services.

Percentage of Disabled and Recently Separated Veterans Served by the DVOP and LVER 

Programs, Program Year 2005 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.

Served by LVER staff Served by DVOP

specialists

39% 48% 13% 44% 44% 12%

Not captured in measure Not captured in measure

Served by staff of

both programs

Recently separated veterans served

(only counted for LVERs)

Disabled veterans served

(only counted for DVOPs)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

DVOP and LVER Performance Information Is Weakened by Several 

Factors 11

Available Data Paint an Unclear Picture of Veterans’ Use of 

One-Stop Services 18 

Labor Has Taken Steps to Better Understand Veterans’ Outcomes, 

but the Programs’ Impact Remains Unknown 25 

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34 

Appendix II Summary of State Performance in the DVOP and 

LVER Programs for Benchmark Program Year 2005 

and Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 37 

Appendix III Summary of State-Negotiated Goals and 

Performance for Veterans in the Employment 

Service, Program Year 2005 42 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 44 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46 

Related GAO Products 47 

Page i GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Tables 

Table 1: Selected Responsibilities of DVOP Specialists and 

LVER Staff 8 

Table 2: Common Measures Adopted by Labor’s Employment and 

Training Programs 9 

Table 3: Performance Measures for the DVOP and LVER Programs 12 

Table 4: DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff Served Similar 

Proportions of Recently Separated and Disabled 

Participants in Program Year 2005 14 

Table 5: Differences between Veteran Definitions in Employment 

and Training Programs 22 

Table 6: States and Local Areas in Our Study 36 

Table 7: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP Program for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for 

Program Year 2006 38 

Table 8: Summary of State Performance in the LVER Program for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for 

Program Year 2006 40 

Table 9: State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for Veterans in 

the Employment Service, Program Year 2005 42 

Figures 

Figure 1: A Large Proportion of Disabled and Recently Separated 

Veterans Are Not Captured in Performance Measures for 

Those Populations (Program Year 2005) 15 

Figure 2: Changes to Performance Information over Time for the 

DVOP and LVER Programs 17 

Figure 3: Veterans Can Access Multiple Employment Services in 

the One-Stop System 19 

Figure 4: Many States Report That DVOP Specialists or LVER Staff 

See Half or Fewer of Veterans That Come into One-Stop 

Centers 20

Figure 5: Percentage of States Responding that Different 

Definitions Affect the Coordination of Services to

Veterans 23

Figure 6: Most State Workforce Agencies Report That Their State 

Systems Take Certain Steps to Ensure the Accuracy and 

Reliability of Employment Service, DVOP, and LVER Data 28 

Page ii GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Abbreviations 

DVOP Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

EER entered employment rate 

EMILE ETA Management Information and Longitudinal 

 Evaluation system 

ERR employment retention rate 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

JVA Jobs for Veterans Act 

LVER Local Veterans’ Employment Representative 

NASWA National Association of State Workforce Agencies

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

UI Unemployment Insurance 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

VETS Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data 

WISPR Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance 

 Reporting System 

WRIS Wage Record Interchange System 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 24, 2007

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Bob Filner 

Chairman 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bob Filner 

Chairman 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House of Representatives 

Approximately 700,000 veterans are unemployed in any given month, and 

roughly 200,000 service members leave active duty and transition to 

civilian life each year, according to the Department of Labor (Labor). 

While their unemployment rate is similar to that of the general population, 

some veterans have special needs in transitioning to the civilian labor 

market. Labor has long provided assistance to veterans to help them 

succeed in this endeavor. In 2002, Congress enacted the Jobs for Veterans 

Act (JVA) to improve employment and training services for veterans by 

better integrating them into the comprehensive service delivery system, or 

one-stop system, created under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 

1998. JVA modified two Labor programs that specifically target veteran job 

seekers and that are administered by the Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service (VETS)—the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

(DVOP) and the Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) 

program—and consolidated the funding into a single grant to states. These 

two programs were funded at about $155 million in fiscal year 2006, and 

served over 715,000 veterans nationwide in the most recent program year. 

JVA addressed concerns raised by some that the programs were overly

prescriptive and did not provide states the flexibility to determine the best 

way to serve veteran job seekers. Instead, JVA identified broad roles and 

responsibilities of DVOP and LVER staff while giving states flexibility to 

determine the number of staff for each program. In addition, the law 

required the implementation of a comprehensive performance 

accountability system that included performance measures for the two 

programs—consistent with those under WIA—and enhanced 

accountability for veteran services in the one-stop system. Moreover, 

many veterans receive reemployment services from programs other than 

Approximately 700,000 veterans are unemployed in any given month, and 

roughly 200,000 service members leave active duty and transition to 

civilian life each year, according to the Department of Labor (Labor). 

While their unemployment rate is similar to that of the general population, 

some veterans have special needs in transitioning to the civilian labor 

market. Labor has long provided assistance to veterans to help them 

succeed in this endeavor. In 2002, Congress enacted the Jobs for Veterans 

Act (JVA) to improve employment and training services for veterans by 

better integrating them into the comprehensive service delivery system, or 

one-stop system, created under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 

1998. JVA modified two Labor programs that specifically target veteran job 

seekers and that are administered by the Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service (VETS)—the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

(DVOP) and the Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) 

program—and consolidated the funding into a single grant to states. These 

two programs were funded at about $155 million in fiscal year 2006, and 

served over 715,000 veterans nationwide in the most recent program year. 

JVA addressed concerns raised by some that the programs were overly

prescriptive and did not provide states the flexibility to determine the best 

way to serve veteran job seekers. Instead, JVA identified broad roles and 

responsibilities of DVOP and LVER staff while giving states flexibility to 

determine the number of staff for each program. In addition, the law 

required the implementation of a comprehensive performance 

accountability system that included performance measures for the two 

programs—consistent with those under WIA—and enhanced 

accountability for veteran services in the one-stop system. Moreover, 

many veterans receive reemployment services from programs other than 

Page 1 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
the DVOP and LVER, and JVA stipulated that veterans served by these 

other programs be given preference over nonveterans, as long as they 

meet the eligibility requirements. These programs—administered by a 

separate office within Labor, the Employment and Training Administration

(ETA)—include the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, the 

Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, and other key employment 

programs. 

To implement JVA, VETS adopted a set of common performance measures 

in July 2005, similar to those adopted by other employment and training 

programs. Each quarter, states report a wide range of data to Labor on 

demographics, services, and outcomes for veterans in the DVOP and LVER 

programs. States are specifically held accountable for certain employmentrelated outcomes for all veterans—whether veteran participants get and 

keep jobs—and separately, for the outcomes of some disabled and 

recently separated veterans. JVA requires Labor to include information in 

its annual report to Congress on whether veterans are receiving priority 

and are being fully served by employment and training programs. 

However, questions have been raised about whether available 

performance information accurately reflects services and outcomes for 

veterans. Moreover, outcome information alone cannot be used to 

evaluate the effectiveness—or impact—of employment services for 

veterans. Program outcomes may be attributable to factors other than a 

program’s services, such as local labor market conditions. In view of these 

concerns and the changes to the performance accountability system 

resulting from the Jobs for Veterans Act, you requested that we review the 

performance information collected on employment and training programs 

that serve veterans. Specifically, we examined (1) the extent to which 

DVOP and LVER performance information reflects services and outcomes 

for veterans served by these programs; (2) the extent to which

performance information on veterans served by other key programs paints 

a clear picture of veterans’ use of one-stop services and (3) what Labor is 

doing to improve the quality of performance data and better understand 

outcomes for veteran job seekers. 

To determine the extent to which available performance information 

reflects services and outcomes for veteran job seekers, we administered a 

nationwide Web-based survey to state workforce administrators in all 

50 states and the District of Columbia. We received responses from all 

51 administrators. In addition, we analyzed performance data from the 

relevant programs and reviewed Labor’s program guidance. To better 

understand state and local variation in employment programs serving 

veterans, we conducted site visits to three states: New Hampshire, 

Page 2 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
California, and Tennessee. We selected these states based on a range of 

criteria, including geographic dispersion, state size and veteran 

demographics, recent state performance in veterans’ programs, and 

recommendations by Labor and the National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies. Our site visits included interviews with state 

workforce agency officials, the federal Director of Veterans’ Employment 

and Training for each state, one-stop managers, and DVOP and LVER 

program staff. Additionally, we interviewed Labor officials from both 

VETS and ETA. As part of this effort, we conducted interviews with all six 

Regional Administrators of Veterans’ Employment and Training to help 

understand regional variation in the programs. Finally, we reviewed 

literature on attributes of successful performance measures, including our 

previous work.1

 For a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology, 

see appendix I. We conducted our review from May 2006 to April 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Performance measures and data for the DVOP and LVER programs 

generally reflect veterans’ services and outcomes, but are weakened by

several factors. The new performance measures, in place since July 2005, 

provide information on some outcomes for veterans, but have not been 

fully implemented. For example, states are held accountable for helping 

veterans get and keep jobs, but are not yet held accountable for veterans’ 

average earnings, as they are for other employment and training programs. 

Additionally, the current performance measures do not include a method

to weight the successful outcomes of veterans who are harder to serve, 

such as those with barriers to employment, as required by JVA. Labor 

developed but has not implemented such a method—which could better 

reflect the difficulty of serving these veterans—because the system was 

seen as too complicated for field staff. In addition, neither the 

performance measures nor the data reported to Labor reflect the full range 

of services that DVOP and LVER staff provide to veterans. For example, 

the current measures hold only DVOP specialists accountable for disabled 

veterans’ employment and retention, but LVER staff also serve a large 

number of disabled veterans who are not counted in those measures. 

Results in Brief 

 1

See the following GAO reports: The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing 

Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington D.C.: April 1998); 

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide to 

Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C:

February 1998); Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 

Page 3 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Similarly, only LVER staff are measured on outcomes for recently 

separated veterans, although DVOP specialists serve roughly the same 

number of recently separated veterans. Also, while states collect a wide 

range of performance data on services and outcomes for veterans, the data

reported to Labor do not currently include information on outreach to 

employers, a key program activity. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess 

outcomes over time, in part because of frequent changes in states’ 

reporting requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend data. 

Labor’s data on services and outcomes for veteran job seekers paint an 

unclear picture of veterans’ use of employment and training services in the 

one-stop system. Despite the shared use of common performance 

measures, key employment and training programs vary in the extent to 

which their data on veteran participants are integrated or shared with 

other programs. As a result, many states may not know how many 

veterans they serve through the one-stop system. For example, most states 

reported that veteran job seekers receive initial assistance from the 

Employment Service, which uses the same reporting system as the DVOP 

and LVER programs and produces separate quarterly reports on services 

and outcomes for veterans. However, states use a different reporting 

system for WIA, and fewer than half the states told us that they do not 

match WIA and Employment Service records to obtain an unduplicated 

count of veterans served by those programs. In addition, Labor and some 

state officials we surveyed reported that statutory differences in the way 

veterans are defined for purposes of program eligibility make it difficult to 

standardize data across employment programs. For example, a veteran is 

generally defined for the DVOP and LVER programs as an individual who 

served on active duty for more than 180 days, while WIA does not specify a

length of time in service. About half of states claimed that the conflicting 

definitions in various employment programs complicate data entry, 

referrals to other programs, and the implementation of priority of service. 

Moreover, Labor has no method of gauging the extent to which priority of

service for veterans has been implemented in various employment 

programs, despite JVA’s requirement that the agency include this 

information in its annual report to Congress. 

Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data 

and better understand veterans’ services and outcomes, but the overall

impact of employment services for veterans is unknown. Labor has 

developed processes to enhance data quality. For example, ETA requires 

states to validate some key performance data reported for Employment 

Service and WIA-funded programs. In addition, ETA and VETS have begun 

to work together on issues of data quality by, for example, conducting 

Page 4 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
joint monitoring visits to states that include an examination of the data. 

Furthermore, Labor’s planned implementation of an integrated data 

reporting system could greatly enhance the understanding of veterans’ 

services and outcomes. The new system is designed to integrate and 

expand data reporting across multiple employment programs, including 

the Employment Service, WIA, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), and 

the DVOP and LVER programs. Using this system, for the first time, Labor 

and states would be able to track individual veterans’ progress through 

different programs in the one-stop system. However, according to a Labor 

official, states have expressed concerns about the time needed to 

implement such a system, and the timeline for implementation remains 

unclear. Furthermore, while outcome information on veteran job seekers 

helps assess whether individuals are achieving their intended goals—such 

as obtaining employment—it cannot measure whether the outcomes are a 

direct result of program participation, rather than external factors. Labor 

has sponsored research on services to veterans. However, it has not 

conducted an impact evaluation, as required under WIA, to assess the 

effectiveness of one-stop services. Such a study should include impacts for 

key participant groups, including veterans. We recommended in a prior 

report that Labor take steps to conduct such an evaluation, but there has 

been no action to date. 

To improve performance information on veteran job seekers, we are 

making a number of recommendations to Labor regarding changes to the

performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs, standardization 

of the different veteran definitions in employment programs, guidance on

Labor’s proposed integrated data-reporting system, and inclusion of 

veterans’ services in an impact evaluation. In its comments, Labor 

generally concurred with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

The nation’s veteran job seekers receive employment and training services 

from programs overseen by two agencies within Labor—the Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service and the Employment and Training 

Administration. General employment services fall under the purview of 

ETA, which administers the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service 

program, providing a national system of public employment services to all 

individuals seeking employment—including veterans. Thus, those veterans 

considered job ready and not in need of intensive services may be served

by Employment Service staff and receive such services as assessment, 

counseling, job readiness evaluation, and placement. ETA carries out its 

Employment Service program through workforce agencies in each state.

Background 

Page 5 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
In fiscal year 2006, the Employment Service program provided a total of 

about $716 million to states. 

While ETA administers programs that serve the general population, 

including veterans, VETS administers the DVOP and LVER programs, 

which focus exclusively on serving veterans, often providing more 

intensive services than the Employment Service does. Like ETA, VETS 

carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that includes 

representation in each of Labor’s six regions and staff in each state. The 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers the agency’s 

activities through regional administrators and state directors. The DVOP 

specialists and LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part 

of states’ public employment services. In fiscal year 2006, the DVOP and 

LVER programs were funded at about $155 million. In the most recent 

program year—program year 2005, which spanned July 1, 2005, to June 30,

2006—the Employment Service, together with the DVOP and LVER 

programs, reported serving about 1.32 million veterans nationwide, of 

whom over 715,000 were served by DVOP specialists and LVER staff. 

The Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER programs are 

mandatory partners in the one-stop system under WIA—where services 

are provided by a range of employment and training programs in a single 

location. Veterans, along with other eligible job seekers, may receive

services from other mandatory one-stop partners, such as WIA-funded 

training or Trade Adjustment Assistance.2

 Additionally, job seekers, 

including veterans, may use the one-stop centers’ computers and other 

resources without staff assistance, and in many places may access onestop services online from home. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

programs are not mandatory partners in the one-stop system, but do 

participate at some locations. 

Jobs for Veterans Act 

Reforms 

In 2002, the Jobs for Veterans Act amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code-- 

which governs the DVOP and LVER programs—and by doing so, 

introduced an array of reforms to the way employment and training 

 2

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is the primary federal employment and training 

program serving workers from the manufacturing sector who are dislocated due to trade. 

Page 6 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
services are provided to veterans.3

 JVA sought to address concerns that 

the programs were overly prescriptive by providing states with enhanced 

flexibility to determine the best way to serve veteran job seekers. Among 

its reforms, JVA 

• redefined the DVOP specialist and LVER staff roles but gave states 

flexibility in deciding their duties; 

• established a single state grant and a new funding formula that 

allowed states to determine the mix of DVOP specialists and LVER 

staff; 

• required a comprehensive performance accountability system 

consistent with WIA performance measures; 

• required that veterans receive priority over other job seekers in all 

Labor job training programs, not just the Employment Service;4

 and 

• required that VETS include information in its annual report to

Congress on employment services to veterans throughout the 

one-stop system. 

JVA identified broad roles and responsibilities of DVOP specialists and 

LVER staff. For example, DVOP specialists are to focus on providing 

intensive services to eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled veterans 

and those with other barriers to employment. LVER staff are to focus on 

conducting outreach to employers to assist veterans in gaining 

employment, as well as facilitating employment, training, and placement 

services given to veterans. State workforce agencies receive a single 

veterans’ program grant to fund both programs; the amount each state 

receives is determined in part by the size of the veteran population within 

each state. State agencies then decide how to distribute the amount they 

receive between the two programs. Table 1 lists selected responsibilities 

of DVOP specialists and LVER staff as set forth in Labor guidance. 

 3

Prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that there was to be one DVOP for each 7,400 veterans in a

state and prescribed 11 functions for DVOP to carry out in providing services to eligible 

veterans. Similarly, Title 38 formerly provided that, in any fiscal year, funding should be 

available for 1,600 full-time LVER staff and prescribed 13 functions to be performed by the 

LVER staff. 

4

Veterans were required to receive priority of service in the Employment Service before

JVA was enacted. 

Page 7 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Table 1: Selected Responsibilities of DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff 

DVOP specialists LVER staff 

Unique 

responsibilities 

• Facilitate intensive services to

veterans with special employment 

and training needs 

• Target services to disabled 

veterans and veterans with other 

barriers to employment, such as 

homeless veterans 

• Promote veterans’ skills and 

experience and advocate for 

veterans with employers 

through activities such as job 

fairs 

• Facilitate and maintain 

regular contact with 

employers 

Shared

responsibilities

Both DVOP specialists and LVER staff may 

• Provide a full range of employment and training services to veterans

• Facilitate employment workshops for those leaving the military 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data. 

JVA also stipulated that veteran job seekers must receive priority over 

other job seekers in any job training program administered by Labor. 

Labor’s guidance requires states to explain how veterans will be given 

priority and how veterans’ services will be provided through the state’s 

one-stop system. For programs that target particular populations, such as 

seniors or low-income individuals, veterans’ priority is applied after any 

other mandatory eligibility provisions are met. 

Changes to the DVOP and 

LVER Performance 

Information 

Like other Labor employment and training programs, the DVOP and LVER 

programs have experienced changes both in the way outcomes are tracked 

and in the measures used to assess performance. Specifically, in 1998, WIA

required that states use automated unemployment insurance wage records 

to track employment-related outcomes. Formerly, to obtain data on 

outcomes, states relied on a manual follow-up process using 

administrative records or contacts with job seekers. To conform to WIA, 

VETS moved from such a manual follow-up system to the new automated 

process in 2002. 

The measures that Labor uses to assess performance in the DVOP and 

LVER programs have also changed over time, gradually reflecting more 

emphasis on outcome-based measures. Before passage of the JVA in 2002, 

for example, some of the measures used for the DVOP and LVER programs 

focused more on services received—such as the number of veterans in 

training or receiving counseling—than on outcomes achieved. In 2002, JVA 

required that Labor develop a comprehensive performance accountability 

system and required that the new system measure performance in a way

that is consistent with WIA. In 2003, VETS adopted performance measures 

Page 8 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
for the DVOP and LVER programs based on those then used in WIA. In 

2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiative, 

Labor began requiring states to implement common performance 

measures for its employment and training programs, including the DVOP 

and LVER programs, the Employment Service, and WIA. OMB established 

a set of common measures to be applied to most federally funded job 

training programs that share similar goals. Labor further defined the 

common measures for all of its Employment and Training Administration

programs, applying three measures to each of its adult programs (see 

table 2). 

Table 2: Common Measures Adopted by Labor’s Employment and Training 

Programs 

Common measure Definition 

Entered employment rate The number of participants employed in the first quarter 

after exiting the program, divided by the total number of 

participants who exit the program during the quarter. 

Employment retention rate Of those participants who are employed in the first quarter 

after exiting the program, the number employed in both the

second and third quarters after exit, divided by the number 

of participants employed in the first quarter after the quarter

of exit. 

Average earnings Of those participants who are employed after the first, 

second, and third quarter after the exit quarter, total 

earnings in the second quarter plus total earnings in the 

third quarter after the exit quarter divided by the number of 

adult participants who exit during the quarter.

Source: Labor. 

In applying the common measures to its programs, VETS also developed 

additional measures to emphasize outcomes for disabled veterans in the 

DVOP program and outcomes for recently separated veterans in the LVER 

program. 

Data Reporting Labor collects performance data for the DVOP and LVER programs on a 

quarterly basis from state workforce agencies. The state agencies use 

report formats developed by Labor to provide detailed tabulations of 

aggregate information on the characteristics of veteran participants, 

services, and outcomes for the two programs, including data showing 

states’ performance using the common measures. The state agencies 

provide this information to Labor in three separate reports: one for the 

Page 9 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
DVOP program, one for the LVER program, and one representing an 

unduplicated count for both programs. 

Furthermore, Labor collects additional information on veterans who 

participate in other Labor programs. For example, ETA collects 

performance data for the Employment Service on all participants on a 

quarterly basis from state workforce agencies, and these reports break out 

services and outcomes for veteran participants. States submit their 

quarterly reports for the Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER 

programs through the same Labor reporting system. 

The Role of Impact 

Evaluations in Assessing 

Program Outcomes 

Information on the services a program has provided and the outcomes 

obtained by program participants are necessary to assess program 

impacts. However, this information is not sufficient to measure program 

impacts—the outcomes may be due to other external factors such as local 

labor market conditions. While impact evaluations allow one to isolate a 

program’s effect on the outcomes of participants, there are several 

approaches to conducting such evaluations. The experimental method is 

often considered the most rigorous method for conducting impact 

evaluations. In the experimental method, participants are randomly 

assigned to two groups—one that receives a program service (or 

treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting outcome 

data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes 

between the groups is taken to demonstrate the programs impact. 

However, it is not always feasible to use the experimental method for 

assessing program impacts. Alternatively, researchers may use a quasiexperimental approach in which program participation is not randomly 

assigned. One approach, often called a comparison group study, compares 

outcome data for individuals who participated in the program with data on

others who did not participate for various reasons. In a comparison group 

study, it is important to find ways to minimize, or statistically control for,

any differences between the two groups. According to OMB, well-matched 

comparison group studies, under certain circumstances, can approach the 

rigor of the experimental method, and it recommends considering this 

method if random assignment is not feasible or appropriate. 

Under WIA, Labor was required to conduct at least one impact evaluation 

of program services by 2005. In a 2004 report, we found that Labor had not

yet begun such an evaluation, and recommended that the agency comply 

Page 10 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
with this statutory requirement and help federal, state, and local policy 

makers understand what services are most effective for improving 

employment-related outcomes.5

The DVOP and LVER programs’ performance information is weakened by

several factors, including implementation challenges and frequent changes 

to performance reporting requirements. In July 2005, Labor implemented 

new performance measures, which provide information on some 

outcomes for veterans. However, not all performance measures have been 

fully implemented. Additionally, neither the performance measures nor the 

data reported to Labor reflect the full range of services that DVOP 

specialists and LVER staff provide to veteran job seekers. Furthermore, it 

is difficult to assess outcomes over time or across states because of 

frequent changes in states’ reporting requirements that prevent 

establishing reliable trend data. 

In July 2005, the DVOP and LVER programs adopted the Office of 

Management and Budget’s common measures, along with other 

employment programs, including WIA and the Employment Service. 

Specifically, states implemented measures that track whether veterans 

obtain and keep jobs after receiving services through these programs, but 

they have not yet implemented a measure to track veterans’ earnings. 

States are held accountable for four separate measures in each program 

that focus on outcomes attained by veterans (see table 3). For the DVOP 

program, states are held accountable for employment and retention for all 

veterans served by the program, as well as for disabled veterans. For the 

LVER program, states are assessed on employment and retention for all 

veterans, as well as for recently separated veterans. Currently, all states 

collect and report data to Labor for calculating performance attainment

and negotiating state goals for these eight measures.6

DVOP and LVER

Performance 

Information Is 

Weakened by Several 

Factors 

The New Performance 

Measures Provide 

Information on Some 

Outcomes for Veterans, 

but Have Not Been Fully 

Implemented 

 5

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 

6

See appendix II for a state-by-state list of negotiated and achieved performance goals for 

the programs. 

Page 11 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Table 3: Performance Measures for the DVOP and LVER Programs 

Program Type of measure

All 

veterans 

Disabled

veterans 

Recently 

separated

veterans 

DVOP Entered employment rate √ √

Employment retention rate √ √

LVER Entered employment rate √ √

Employment retention rate √ √

Source: Labor. 

However, states are not yet held accountable for an additional common 

measure—veterans’ average earnings—in either the DVOP or the LVER 

programs. Other employment and training programs, such as WIA and the 

Employment Service, include an average earnings measure for which 

states are accountable. For the DVOP and LVER programs, however, 

calculating the average earnings was not as straightforward as Labor had 

anticipated. A VETS official told us that the agency will calculate baseline 

data for average earnings during the current program year, but Labor will 

not establish goals and states will not be held accountable for their 

performance on this measure until the following year—program year 

2007—at the earliest. 

Furthermore, Labor has not adopted a system to give more weight to 

successful outcomes for veterans who have substantial barriers to 

employment, such as a disability. JVA required Labor to weight 

performance measures to provide special consideration to veterans 

requiring intensive services, as well as disabled veterans. Such a weighting 

system would compensate for the fact that veterans with barriers to 

employment may need more assistance than others in finding jobs. It 

would also provide an incentive for program staff to help veterans with 

severe barriers to employment. For example, if a veteran has a disability 

and requires intensive case management services, his or her successful 

outcomes would have a greater effect on a state’s overall performance 

than those of other veterans with fewer barriers. Following JVA’s 

enactment, Labor formed a work group to develop a weighting system for 

the DVOP and LVER performance measures. On the basis of the group’s 

work, the agency issued guidance to introduce the weighted measures to 

states in June 2003, with the expectation of implementing them soon after. 

However, after further review, a Labor official told us the agency did not

implement the weights in order to give states time to fully implement other 

Page 12 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
reporting changes. At this time, it is not clear whether Labor will 

implement this system in the future. 

Performance Measures 

and the Data Reported to 

Labor Do Not Reflect the 

Full Range of Staff 

Services 

Although DVOP specialists and LVER staff perform similar duties for all 

types of veterans in most states, the current performance measures hold 

the two programs accountable for different groups of veterans. JVA and 

Labor’s guidance outline the key responsibilities and target populations for 

DVOP specialists and LVER staff, but also allow for some flexibility in 

their roles and responsibilities. Both DVOP and LVER staff are expected to 

serve the general veteran population, but DVOP specialists are also 

expected to target their services toward veterans who have greater 

barriers to employment and need intensive case management, including

disabled veterans. JVA specifies that LVER staff focus on conducting 

outreach to employers and assisting all veteran job seekers. In addition, 

Labor has recently added the expectation that LVER staff focus their 

responsibilities on assisting recently separated veterans. As a result of 

these expectations, Labor separately holds DVOP specialists accountable

for the outcomes achieved by the disabled veterans they serve, and LVER

staff for the outcomes of the recently separated veterans they serve. 

In practice, however, both programs’ staff serve similar veteran

populations. In program year 2005, for example, 14 percent of veterans 

served by the DVOP program were disabled and 21 percent were recently 

separated. For the LVER program, 10 percent of veterans served were 

disabled and 19 percent were recently separated (see table 4). States 

acknowledged this similarity in our survey as well. Over a third of states 

responded that DVOP and LVER staff are equally likely to serve disabled 

veterans, while about half of states responded that the two programs’ staff 

are equally likely to serve recently separated veterans. 

Page 13 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Table 4: DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff Served Similar Proportions of Recently Separated and Disabled Participants in 

Program Year 2005 

Veterans 

Recently separated Disabled 

 Number Percentage Number Percentage Total served

Served by DVOPs 78,843 21 52,331 14 382,144

Served by LVERs 78,379 19 41,847 10 408,837

Source: Labor. 

Note: These numbers include 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. They do not 

include Pennsylvania because it is piloting a new reporting system and currently not submitting the 

standard quarterly reports for the DVOP and LVER programs. 

In addition to finding similarity in populations served, we also found some 

similarity in activities carried out by DVOP and LVER staff. States reported 

that the three activities on which DVOP specialists spend the most time 

include 

• providing intensive case management services, 

• conducting an initial assessment or interview, and 

• assisting with job search activities. 

The top three activities LVER staff perform include 

• conducting outreach to employers, 

• assisting with job search activities, and 

• conducting an initial assessment or interview. 

This division of duties appears to reflect the different focuses of the two 

programs, as well as the flexibility under JVA for states to decide on staff

duties. However, almost 85 percent of states responded that DVOP 

specialists conduct outreach to employers, a focus of the LVER program. 

Additionally, almost 60 percent of states responded that LVER staff 

provide intensive services, a primary focus of the DVOP program. 

In our site visits, we found that this similarity in staff roles and target 

populations exists in part because some one-stop centers have only a 

single DVOP specialist or LVER staff on duty at any given time. In these 

particular one-stop centers, the same employee is responsible for serving 

all groups of veterans and carrying out job roles for both programs. Even 

in centers with more than one staff person, veterans tend to be served by

whichever staff person is available at that time. Program staff in several 

centers told us that recently separated veterans were not specifically

Page 14 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
directed to LVER staff for services, nor were disabled veterans directed to

DVOP staff. This sharing of duties may be due, in part, to changes in 

staffing levels. More than half of states reported a decrease in the number 

of full-time DVOP specialists or LVER staff over the last 2 years, and most 

attributed this decline to the size of their state grant for the programs. 

Nevertheless, this similarity in roles and populations served causes the 

current performance measures to present an incomplete view of outcomes 

for disabled and recently separated veterans in the DVOP and LVER 

programs. The large numbers of disabled veterans served by the LVER 

program and recently separated veterans served by the DVOP program are 

not included in the set of measures that focus on the outcomes of those 

populations (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: A Large Proportion of Disabled and Recently Separated Veterans Are Not 

Captured in Performance Measures for Those Populations (Program Year 2005) 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.

Served by LVER staff

Served by DVOP specialists

Served by staff of both programs

39% 48% 13% 44% 44% 12%

Not captured in measure Not captured in measure

Recently separated veterans served

(only counted for LVERs)

Disabled veterans served

(only counted for DVOPs)

Beyond the measures for disabled and recently separated veterans, having 

separate measures for the DVOP and LVER programs obscures the overall

picture of outcomes to veterans, given the similarity between many of the 

program activities and the reality of how the programs operate. According 

to our survey, almost half the states would like Labor to consolidate the

performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs. 

Page 15 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
While the performance measures present an incomplete view of the 

outcomes for veterans, the data that states are required to report to Labor 

do not reflect the full range of staff services. Labor requires states to 

report a wide range of data for the DVOP and LVER programs, including 

information on veteran characteristics—such as age and disability status—

and staff services provided—such as intensive services and referrals to 

other programs. However, Labor does not require data on employer 

outreach activities, despite JVA’s designation of employer outreach as a

primary job responsibility of LVER staff. Consequently, Labor and states 

cannot formally monitor the extent to which staff perform this activity. 

Some states, however, collect these data for their own use. According to 

our survey, almost half of states currently collect employer-related 

information for the DVOP and LVER programs, and over 75 percent of 

states reported that it would be helpful to collect these data. 

In addition, even though the data reported to Labor generally reflect 

services and outcomes for veterans, these data are aggregate tallies and do

not show services provided to individual veterans. For example, each 

state’s quarterly reports reflect the sum of all services provided and do not 

show the number of services provided per veteran or per staff person. The 

current data are useful to provide an overall picture of the programs’ 

volume and operations. However, these data provide little information 

about services received by individual veterans or delivered by particular 

veteran staff.

Performance Data Are Not 

Comparable over Time or 

across States 

In recent years, reporting requirements for the DVOP and LVER programs 

have undergone several significant changes. These changes have moved 

the performance accountability system closer to those of other 

employment and training programs. At the same time, the changes have 

resulted in a lack of reliable trend data. In July 2002, the DVOP and LVER 

programs changed from using administrative follow-up to determine 

veterans’ employment outcomes to obtaining information from

Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records. In doing so, Labor changed

its method of calculating outcomes for veterans in the DVOP and LVER 

programs.7

 Then, in July 2005, Labor applied the common measures to 

these two programs, refining and standardizing the application of UI wage 

records to determine outcomes. Under the old system, Labor calculated 

 7

Because UI wage records only contain aggregate quarterly earnings for individuals, it was 

necessary for Labor to change the way the measures were calculated. 

Page 16 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
entered employment and employment retention rates based on the number 

of veterans who participated in the programs. However, under the new 

system, Labor calculated these rates based on how many veterans 

terminate services and exit the programs. Although these changes have 

standardized the performance measures across programs, they have also

prevented Labor and states from developing consistent, comparable data

over the past 5 years. As a result, Labor does not have reliable historic data 

for either program. Figure 2 illustrates the various changes to the DVOP 

and LVER programs’ performance reporting requirements. 

Figure 2: Changes to Performance Information over Time for the DVOP and LVER Programs 

Furthermore, the instability in data collection and reporting has left Labor 

unable to establish a national veterans’ entered employment standard, as 

required by JVA. Labor anticipates that it will need at least 3 years of 

stable data to establish the national standard. Once it is established, all 

states will be held accountable to the same minimum goal for veterans’ 

entered employment. However, it is unclear when Labor will have 

sufficient data to establish this standard because states continue to 

experience difficulty adjusting to the numerous changes. According to our 

survey, over 70 percent of states reported that frequent changes to 

performance reporting requirements have been either a great or very great

challenge. 

The data also vary somewhat state by state. For example, the application 

of wage records to calculate veteran outcomes across state lines is no 

longer consistent across states. The Wage Record Interchange System 

(WRIS) allows states to share UI wage records and account for job seekers 

Page 17 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
who participate in one state’s employment programs but get jobs in 

another state. In recent years, all states but one participated in WRIS, 

which was operated by the nonprofit National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies. In July 2006, Labor assumed responsibility for 

administering WRIS. However, many states have withdrawn, in part 

because of a perceived conflict of interest between ETA’s role in enforcing

federal law and the states’ role in protecting the confidentiality of their 

data. As of March 2007, only 30 states were participating in the program, 

and it is unknown if and when the other states will enter the data-sharing 

agreement. As a result, DVOP and LVER performance information in 

almost half the states will not include employment outcomes for veterans 

who found jobs outside the states in which they received services. In 

addition, other reasons contribute to data variation by state. Labor allows 

states flexibility in choosing data collection software, which has resulted 

in some states adapting more quickly than others to the recent changes, 

depending on their software capabilities. Several Labor officials told us 

that because of differences in software capabilities, some states’ data may 

be more reliable than others’. 

Labor’s data on veteran job seekers paint an unclear picture of their use of

employment and training services in the one-stop system, despite the 

shared use of common performance measures across programs. Although 

many veterans use employment services other than those provided by the 

DVOP and LVER programs, key employment programs vary in how well 

their data on veteran participants are integrated or shared with other 

programs. As a result, many states may not know how many veterans use 

one-stop services. In addition, statutory differences in the way veterans 

are defined for purposes of program eligibility make it difficult to 

standardize data across employment programs. Moreover, Labor has no 

means of assessing whether priority of service for veterans has been 

implemented in various employment programs. 

Many veteran job seekers receive employment services from the DVOP 

and LVER programs. However, some veterans—often the more jobready—only use one-stop services aimed at the general population, such 

as the Employment Service and WIA programs. In addition, some veterans 

use services focused on other subsets of job seekers—such as TAA (see 

fig. 3). As a result, performance information on many veterans is collected

and reported elsewhere in the one-stop system. In fact, 20 states reported 

that about half or fewer of veteran job seekers who access employment 

programs receive services from a DVOP specialist or LVER staff, 

Available Data Paint 

an Unclear Picture of 

Veterans’ Use of OneStop Services 

Veterans Receive Services 

from Multiple Programs in 

the One-Stop System 

Page 18 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
according to our survey (see fig. 4). In addition, some veterans obtain 

services from more than one employment program in the one-stop system, 

all of which use the common measures to assess their performance. 

Figure 3: Veterans Can Access Multiple Employment Services in the One-Stop

System

Job seeker is identified as a

veteran and directed to 

program or programs best 

suited to veteran’s needs

Self-services

Access to computer 

programs and other 

employment 

resources

Other services

• Employment Service

• WIA

• TAA

• Other federal programs

DVOP and LVER 

programs

Veteran may

be referred

among

programs

Veteran receives priority upon entry into these programs

Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.

One-Stop system

Note: The figure reflects only the services provided by some of the mandatory partners in the onestop system. Other optional partners may participate, but the specific optional partners vary by

location. 

Page 19 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Figure 4: Many States Report That DVOP Specialists or LVER Staff See Half or

Fewer of Veterans That Come into One-Stop Centers 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.

All or almost

all veterans

Most veterans

About half or

fewer of veterans

Do not know

9

21

20

1

Data on Veterans’ Services 

Are Well Integrated across 

Some but Not All 

Programs in the One-Stop 

System 

Performance data on veteran job seekers are well integrated or shared 

across some key employment and training programs, but not others, 

despite the mutual use of common measures. As a result, many states may 

not know how many veterans they serve through the one-stop system. 

Data on veterans who access the Employment Service are completely 

integrated with data from the DVOP and LVER programs—they share the

same reporting system, and DVOP and LVER data are a subset of 

Employment Service data. According to our survey, veteran job seekers in 

most states receive initial assistance from the Employment Service when

they access the one-stop system. If they are subsequently referred to the 

DVOP and LVER programs, all of their information is housed in the same 

system and an unduplicated count of veterans served between these 

programs can be obtained. In addition, states are held accountable for 

meeting separate goals in the Employment Service for veterans and 

disabled veterans (see app. III). Labor considers these measures to reflect 

veterans’ outcomes for the entire one-stop system, as they constitute 

outcomes for all veterans who access the Employment Service, DVOP, and 

Page 20 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
LVER programs. Furthermore, they are the best approximation of a total

count of veterans who access the one-stop system that the current data 

will allow. 

On the other hand, data on veterans served by other one-stop programs 

are not well integrated. States report data to Labor on WIA participants 

who exit the programs, including veterans, using the Workforce 

Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) system. Although 

WIASRD contains sufficient information to produce separate veteran 

outcome data for WIA programs, states are not required to produce 

separate veteran reports and are not accountable for meeting veteran 

goals in those programs. In addition, fewer than half the states reported 

that they routinely match WIA and Employment Service records to attain 

an unduplicated count of veterans served by those programs. 

Consequently, veterans who access two different employment services 

may be counted twice in some cases. Data for TAA participants are 

reported to Labor in yet another data system, which does allow states to 

report on the veteran status of participants, but Labor officials told us the 

agency does not currently use veteran outcomes from that program for 

any purpose.8

 VETS does not include the veteran outcome data from WIA 

or TAA in its annual report to Congress, and Labor officials told us they 

are exploring ways to better use the data. 

In addition, data are not always collected on job seekers who use 

Employment Service or WIA resources without assistance from program 

staff. These self-assisted job seekers—including veterans—access services 

such as labor market or career information either in one-stop centers or 

on home computers, but do not receive active assistance from program 

staff. Historically, some states have collected information on these job 

seekers, while others have not. In our survey, 73 percent of states reported 

that they capture information on all veterans who receive self-assisted 

services through the Employment Service, while 82 percent of states 

reported doing so for all veterans who receive self-assisted WIA services. 

Labor has encouraged—but not mandated—states to collect information 

on this group of job seekers, but agency officials acknowledged that states 

continue to vary in how they report such data. Labor officials have 

expressed concern that requiring veterans who receive self-assisted 

 8

For more information on TAA outcome data, see GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: 

Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and

Accessible, GAO-06-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006).

Page 21 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
services to register for the programs might discourage some of them from 

pursuing the services they need. 

Different Veteran 

Definitions Complicate 

Efforts to Standardize Data 

and Implement Priority of 

Service 

Labor and some state officials we surveyed reported that statutory 

differences in the definitions of veterans for various employment 

programs make it difficult to standardize data across programs. For the 

purposes of the DVOP and LVER programs, an eligible veteran is 

statutorily defined as an individual who served on active duty for more 

than 180 days.

9

 Labor also uses this definition for the Employment Service. 

WIA, on the other hand, does not specify a length of time in service for a 

person to be considered a veteran. Moreover, to qualify as a recently 

separated veteran in the DVOP and LVER programs, a veteran must have 

left active duty in the last 3 years. By contrast, WIA defines recently 

separated as having left active duty in the last 4 years (see table 5). 

Table 5: Differences between Veteran Definitions in Employment and Training

Programs 

Length of time in 

service 

Recently separated

veteran Statutory source 

DVOP, LVER, 

and Employment 

Service programs 

Served on active 

duty for a period of 

more than 180 days 

Up to 3 years after 

discharge or release 

from active duty 

38 U.S.C. 4211 

WIA programs No requirement for 

time in service

Up to 4 years after 

discharge or release 

from active duty 

Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 

(29 U.S.C. 2801) 

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: To be eligible, all programs require that veterans be discharged or released from duty under 

conditions other than dishonorable.

These inconsistent definitions have been difficult for Labor and states to 

reconcile with the concept of seamless service delivery and have caused 

some confusion for states as they implement priority of service throughout 

the one-stop system. While JVA requires that veterans receive priority over 

other job seekers in Labor-funded employment and training programs, it 

does not define a veteran for purposes of the priority requirement. Labor 

has interpreted JVA’s provisions to mean that while veterans are to receive 

 9

Veterans discharged because of service-connected disabilities and members of reserve

components who have served on active duty during a war or designated campaign are not 

subject to a 180-day requirement. 

Page 22 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
preference in the programs after any other statutory eligibility 

requirements are met, each program must use its own statutory definition

of a veteran in applying that preference. Labor officials told us that one 

state applied for a waiver in 2006 to use a single definition of veterans for

all of its employment and training programs, but Labor’s Solicitor’s Office 

orally denied the request. In our survey, approximately half of all states 

reported that the conflicting veteran definitions in various employment 

programs complicate data entry, referrals to other programs, and the 

implementation of priority of service. In addition, about a third of the 

states claimed that the definitions created gaps in services for veteran 

clients as they moved among employment programs (see fig. 5). For 

example, if a veteran receives services from WIA and is subsequently 

referred to the DVOP program but is found ineligible, he or she may 

become discouraged and stop seeking services altogether. 

Figure 5: Percentage of States Responding that Different Definitions Affect the 

Coordination of Services to Veterans 

Effect of different definitions

Percentage of states that agree

Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Create gaps in services

for veteran clients

Complicate the implementation

of priority of service

Complicate referrals to

other programs

Complicate data entry

between programs

31

47

51

53

Almost half of states shared their concerns about different definitions by 

providing additional comments in our survey, many of which cited the 

difficulty of providing priority of service under these circumstances. For 

example, one state responded that different definitions often lead to 

inappropriate referrals, resulting in poor customer service and frustration 

for program participants and service providers. Other states focused on 

the burden that competing definitions placed on data collection and 

reporting. For example, one state responded that the issue has made it 

difficult to integrate the state’s Employment Service and WIA data 

systems, because the different definitions could lead to invalidating the 

veteran numbers on reports for those programs. Another state cited the 

Page 23 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
difficulty in assessing how many veterans were served by the state, 

highlighting the complexity of producing an unduplicated count of 

veterans served by different programs that do not share a single definition.

States also cited challenges in dealing with other agencies that are not 

mandated partners in the one-stop system. For example, two states 

mentioned that some staff of other agencies’ programs may hesitate to 

refer participants to the DVOP and LVER programs because they are 

unsure about participant eligibility. An expert on veterans’ issues in the 

states concurred that the different eligibility criteria for veterans has been 

a problem for states and told us that a common veteran definition for 

employment and training programs would be an improvement. 

Labor Has No Means of 

Evaluating Priority of 

Service for Veterans 

Despite JVA’s mandate, Labor has not produced information on the extent 

to which veterans receive priority of service in all qualified employment 

and training programs. Specifically, JVA required Labor to evaluate and

report on whether veterans are receiving priority of service and are fully 

served by its employment programs, as well as whether the representation

of veterans in such programs is in proportion to their participation in the 

labor force. In its fiscal year 2005 report, Labor stated that the

participation rate for veterans in its adult programs was approximately 

8.4 percent—slightly higher than veterans’ participation rates in the U.S. 

workforce. In addition, the agency reported that outcomes for veterans 

served in these programs closely mirrored those of all job seekers in the 

programs. However, Labor has no method of gauging how—and how 

consistently—priority of service is actually applied. Labor officials told us 

that the highly devolved workforce development system makes it very 

difficult to evaluate priority of service, because different programs have 

multiple access points and diverse eligibility criteria that prevent Labor 

from applying a simple measurement technique to each. 

States reported that implementing priority of service has been challenging, 

as has holding one-stop partner programs accountable for serving 

veterans. To supplement federal guidance on this issue, at least one state 

has developed its own guidance for implementing and measuring priority 

of service. Some Regional Directors of VETS told us they encouraged the

use of that state’s guidance as a model for assessing priority of service for 

states in their own regions. We do not know when Labor will develop 

further guidance on the issue. However, in December 2006, Congress 

passed the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology 

Act of 2006, which included a requirement that Labor release regulations 

on implementing priority of service within 2 years. In addition, the agency 

has begun planning a study of priority of service in response to our prior 

Page 24 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
report.10 According to Labor officials, the study will combine a survey of 

participants with a process evaluation and an analysis of outcomes. Labor 

does not yet know when the study will get under way. 

Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data 

and better understand veterans’ services and outcomes, but the overall

impact of employment services for veterans is unknown. Labor has 

developed some processes to enhance data quality. For example, Labor’s 

ETA requires states to validate some data in key programs. Furthermore, 

Labor plans to implement an integrated data-reporting system that would 

allow Labor and states to track individual veterans’ progress through 

different programs in the one-stop system. Additionally, the new system 

would expand data collection by, for example, collecting more data on 

services to employers. However, states have raised concerns about the 

challenge of meeting the system’s planned implementation date, and the 

timeline for implementation remains unclear. Furthermore, while 

performance information helps assess whether individuals are achieving 

their intended outcomes—such as obtaining employment—it cannot 

measure whether the outcomes are a direct result of program 

participation, rather than external factors. To measure the effects of a 

program, it is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation that would seek 

to assess whether the program itself led to participant outcomes. Labor 

has sponsored research on services to veterans. However, it has not 

conducted an impact evaluation, as required under WIA, to assess the 

effectiveness of one-stop services. Such a study should include impacts for 

key participant groups, including veterans. We recommended in 2004 that 

Labor take steps to conduct such an evaluation, but there has been no 

action to date. 

Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data 

and enhance the understanding of veterans’ services and outcomes. To 

address data quality concerns, ETA has developed processes requiring 

states to validate certain data reported for participants in WIA and 

Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service programs. However, while 

these programs serve veterans, participant records are randomly selected

Labor Has Taken 

Steps to Better 

Understand Veterans’ 

Outcomes, but the 

Programs’ Impact 

Remains Unknown 

Labor Has Developed 

Some Processes to 

Enhance the Quality of 

Performance Data 

 10GAO, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve 

Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans’ Employment Services,

GAO-06-176 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 2005). 

Page 25 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
in both programs from the total participant population and, therefore, may 

not include the records of veteran participants. 

Both the WIA data validation process, developed in 2004, and the 

Employment Service process, developed in 2003, involve two types of data

validation, although the WIA process is more intensive, according to Labor 

officials. Both processes involve (1) data element validation—comparing 

randomly sampled participant records to source files, and (2) report 

validation—assessing whether states’ software accurately calculated 

performance outcomes. While element validation in WIA is conducted onsite with hardcopy source documentation, the Employment Service data 

validation process is performed centrally and electronically, because 

Employment Service records are generally electronic.11 The Employment 

Service element validation process checks for duplicate or invalid entries 

in source files by, for example, checking for inconsistencies among 

various veteran-related fields, such as veteran status and disabled veteran. 

However, the Employment Service element validation process cannot 

check the underlying accuracy of the data, because there is no hard copy

documentation to prove whether a participant is in fact a veteran. 

Labor officials told us that the Employment Service data validation 

process has been helpful in raising awareness among states about the 

importance of data quality and that some states have come to see it as a 

useful tool. Additionally, states responding to our survey generally agreed 

that it has been effective—38 states, or about 75 percent, rated the 

Employment Service data validation process as effective in ensuring the 

accuracy of veteran job seekers’ information. For example, according to 

one respondent, review of the data validation results is used as a 

management tool, to highlight successes and to alert staff to weaknesses. 

Nevertheless, some states have expressed concerns about the data 

validation processes. Concerns about the process were also raised by state 

officials in all 3 of the states we visited. For example, officials in 2 of the 

3 states noted that they had experienced difficulties adjusting to frequent 

changes in software before the results were due to Labor. On our survey, 

2 states said that the sample size was too small to be meaningful, and 

4 states expressed concerns about the fact that the process does not verify 

 11For more information on the WIA data validation process, see GAO, Workforce

Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to Improve Data Quality, but 

Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005). 

Page 26 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
the accuracy of the data in source files. These concerns are similar to 

those we identified in a previous report that addressed the WIA process.12

Additionally, Labor has taken steps to address data quality as a part of its 

routine monitoring and technical assistance. Specifically, beginning in 

2004, ETA regional staff have incorporated a data quality component into 

compliance visits to state offices, which are generally conducted once or 

twice a year, according to Labor officials. Data validation is just one 

component of these compliance visits, which typically do not focus on 

veterans’ data as a separate issue. To support this effort, Labor officials 

told us that ETA has amended its monitoring guide for these visits to 

include a section on data validation. According to Labor officials, these 

visits have been useful in identifying problems and corrective actions. 

Moreover, ETA and VETS have recently collaborated on a few of these 

compliance visits.13 Labor officials said they believed this joint monitoring 

was beneficial, and expect those efforts to be a model for future joint 

visits. 

There are several other forms of management reviews that generally focus 

on services to veterans but also offer a chance to review data. For 

example, VETS regional and state-based staff conduct site visits as part of 

their routine monitoring, which focus primarily on services to veterans but 

which can include reviewing performance information as well. 

Additionally, VETS has required a series of annual assessments—of the 

program for each state overall, and self-assessments by DVOP specialists, 

LVER staff, and one-stop managers—that address data issues to a limited 

extent. State directors use performance data to substantiate services 

described in the self-assessment. For example, according to one official

we spoke with, to confirm a LVER staff’s claim of travel to several job 

fairs, the director can consult the one-stop’s travel log to substantiate 

whether the LVER staff actually made the trips. 

Beyond the steps Labor has taken, state workforce agencies also perform 

functions that affect performance data on services to veterans. Most states 

responding to our survey reported that they have taken certain steps to 

ensure the accuracy and reliability of data for the Employment Service, 

DVOP, and LVER programs, such as having their systems perform 

 12GAO-06-82. 

13According to Labor officials, joint compliance visits have been conducted in three states 

to date: Arizona, Oregon, and Washington. 

Page 27 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
automated checks for inconsistencies in data or for duplicate veteran files 

(see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: Most State Workforce Agencies Report That Their State Systems Take

Certain Steps to Ensure the Accuracy and Reliability of Employment Service, 

DVOP, and LVER Data

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Maintains records of problems

(system crashes or lost data)

Checks for missing or

invalid values

Checks for duplicate

veteran files

Checks inconsistencies in data

41

41

43

45

Labor’s Proposed 

Integrated Data System 

Could Improve the 

Understanding of Services 

and Outcomes for Veterans 

Since 2004, Labor has been planning to implement an integrated data

reporting system that could greatly enhance the understanding of veterans’ 

services and outcomes. In 2004, Labor first proposed a single, streamlined 

reporting system, known as the ETA Management Information and 

Longitudinal Evaluation system (EMILE) that would have replaced 

reporting systems for several Labor programs. Labor substantially 

modified this system’s design in response to concerns raised by state and

local agencies about the burden and cost of the new system, as well as the 

challenge of meeting the implementation deadline. The modified system, 

now called the Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting

System (WISPR), was planned with a July 2007 implementation date. 

WISPR has been designed to both integrate and expand data reporting. 

If implemented, the system would integrate data reporting by using 

standardized reporting requirements across the Employment Service,

DVOP and LVER, WIA, and TAA programs, and ultimately replace their 

preexisting reporting systems with a single reporting structure. 

Additionally, it would rely on a standardized set of data elements and 

quarterly reports to provide data on participant characteristics and 

services provided, as well as performance outcomes based on the common 

measures. Its integrated design would, for the first time, allow Labor and 

states to track individual veterans’ progress through the one-stop system. 

Page 28 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
In addition, the system would expand data collection and reporting in two 

key areas: the services that LVER staff provide to employers, a key aspect 

of the LVER role on which Labor currently collects no data, and estimates 

of the population of veterans who access the one-stop system but 

ultimately receive limited or no services from one-stop staff. 

As with EMILE, however, concerns have been raised about challenges in

implementing the new system, and at present, the timeline for WISPR’s 

implementation remains unclear. Some of the comments received by OMB 

during the official comment period noted the challenge of a July 2007 

implementation date, according to a Labor official. While states will have a 

2-year period to consolidate reporting on the full range of programs, they 

are expected to begin collecting and reporting data in the new format 

immediately. As of December 2006, 39 entities, including state workforce 

agencies, local agencies and unions, had submitted comments reflecting 

their concerns about WISPR to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Of the 20 states that submitted comments, 14 noted that a July 

2007 implementation date would represent a challenge. For example, some 

of them expressed the view that Labor had underestimated the time states 

would need to revise policy, reprogram systems, and retrain staff. In 

addition, some states expressed concerns about their ability to provide 

data on services to employers. Moreover, two states expressed the 

concern that meeting Labor's planned implementation date would have 

adverse consequences, such as compromised data quality or cost 

overruns. OMB’s official review will address the time needed to build the 

reporting system’s technical infrastructure, and will play a key role in 

deciding the system’s final implementation schedule, according to a Labor 

official. States and local areas will need enough time to fully meet the 

requirements of this expanded data collection. 

Little Is Known about the 

Impact of One-Stop 

Services, including Those 

to Veterans 

Although Labor has improved its outcome data on job seekers who 

participate in its programs, these data alone cannot measure whether 

outcomes are a direct result of program participation, rather than external

factors. For example, local labor market conditions may affect an 

individual’s ability to find a job as much or more than participation in an 

employment and training program. To measure the effects of a program, it

is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation that would seek to assess 

whether the program itself led to participant outcomes. Labor has not 

conducted an impact evaluation of one-stop services, including those to 

Page 29 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
veterans. However, the department did sponsor a study, issued in 2003, 

that examined the relationship between services provided to certain 

groups of veterans and employment and earnings outcomes.14 This study 

employed a number of data sources and statistical techniques to learn 

more about how veterans were using one-stop services. However, while 

this study provided some useful information, it could not determine that 

these services caused positive outcomes for veteran job seekers. In 

addition, the study relied on data from 8 states and its findings could not

be generalized to the national population of veteran job seekers. 

Since the full implementation of WIA in 2000—in which the one-stop 

system became the required means to provide employment and training 

services, including those to veterans—Labor has not made evaluating the 

impact of those services a research priority. While WIA required one such 

evaluation by 2005, Labor has declined to fund one in prior budgets. In a 

2004 report, we recommended that Labor comply with the requirements of 

WIA and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to better 

understand what services are most effective for improving employmentrelated outcomes.15 In response to our report, Labor cited the need for 

program stability and proposed delaying an impact evaluation of WIA until 

any changes that might be included in reauthorization legislation had been

implemented. While efforts to reauthorize WIA began in 2003, they have 

stalled and it is not clear at this time when they will be complete. 

Furthermore, OMB has also found Labor’s evaluations of WIA services to 

be lacking. In response, in its 2008 budget proposal, Labor identified an 

assessment of WIA’s impact on employment, retention, and earnings 

outcomes for participants as an effort the agency would begin. According 

to Labor officials, the agency has not yet begun to design the study. Such a 

study should include impacts for key participant groups, including 

veterans. To do so would require a sufficient sample of veterans to allow 

such analysis. 

 14Battelle Memorial Institute, Assessment of Unemployed Veterans’ Needs for the 

Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, PSC Contract 

No. 282-98-0019, Task Order No. 7, Battelle Project Number FG465407 (Arlington, Virginia: 

November 30, 2003). 

15GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 

Page 30 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
At a time when the nation’s attention is focused on those who have served

their country, it is vital that Congress and the Administration are able to 

make informed decisions about programs that help veterans find and keep 

jobs in the civilian labor market. Frequent changes in Labor’s performance 

accountability system have hampered Labor’s ability to produce consistent 

and meaningful performance information on veteran job seekers. States 

and local areas have had difficulty implementing the constant changes to 

performance information, which introduce error and make it difficult to 

identify trends that would give Congress a better idea of the programs’ 

achievements. While the anticipated transition to a new reporting system 

represents a promising advance in Labor’s ability to track the outcomes of 

veterans in the one-stop system, states will need time to effectively 

implement the changes to avoid compromising the potential benefits—

such as improved data quality—of the system. 

Furthermore, the current separate performance measures for the DVOP 

and LVER programs do not account for the considerable similarity in 

veteran populations served by DVOP specialists and LVER staff, and thus

do not provide an accurate picture of outcomes for veterans served by 

these two programs. Using the existing measures, Labor also cannot 

ensure that performance outcomes give more weight to services for 

veterans with greater barriers to employment. In addition, different 

veteran definitions in other programs could make it difficult to analyze 

services to veterans throughout the one-stop system. Further, Labor 

cannot provide assurance that veterans are appropriately given service 

priority by programs in the one-stop system, or that services to veterans 

are truly effective. The federal government spends about $155 million each 

year on the DVOP and LVER programs alone, not counting the amounts 

spent on veterans who use other one-stop programs, but there is no 

information on whether these programs have an impact in helping this 

important population. Establishing a means to gauge the programs’ impact

would require a considerable investment of time and money, but would 

contribute greatly to the understanding of whether current employment 

and training services are meeting veterans’ needs. Furthermore, we 

continue to urge Labor to meet WIA requirements and our 2004 

recommendation to conduct an impact evaluation of one-stop services.

To provide a better picture of services and outcomes for veteran job 

seekers, improve program reporting, and facilitate priority of service, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Labor 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 31 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
• ensure that states are given adequate direction and sufficient time 

to implement ETA’s planned integrated data reporting system and 

make necessary changes;

• consolidate all performance measures for the DVOP and LVER 

programs, including those for disabled and recently separated 

veterans; 

• comply with JVA’s requirement to implement a weighting system for 

the DVOP and LVER performance measures that takes into account 

the difficulty of serving veterans with particular barriers to 

employment; 

• develop legislative proposals for appropriate changes to the

definitions of veterans across employment and training programs to 

ensure consistency; and 

• ensure that Labor moves forward with an impact evaluation for the 

one-stop system under WIA as we recommended in 2004, and that 

the evaluation’s sampling methodology includes veterans in 

sufficient numbers to allow analysis of the impact of services to 

veterans in the one-stop system, including those served by the 

DVOP and LVER programs. 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In its 

comments, Labor generally concurred with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and expressed appreciation that the report 

acknowledges the steps the agency has taken to improve the quality of 

performance data and better understand outcomes for veterans. Labor 

noted that it is considering adopting a different approach to measuring 

outcomes for the DVOP and LVER programs by program year 2008—one 

that may take into account the similar veteran populations served, as well

as outreach to employers. As it develops this new approach, Labor 

reported that it will also introduce a system of weighted measures that will 

emphasize services to veterans with barriers to employment. These 

changes will coincide with the implementation of Labor’s proposed 

integrated data system, WISPR. Labor also noted that it would work with 

states and grantees to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. In 

addition, Labor stated that it intends to pursue a WIA impact evaluation, 

which will allow for analysis of services to sub-populations, including 

veterans. Labor reported that our recommendation to develop proposals 

for changing veteran definitions across employment and training programs 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 32 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
must be evaluated with the input of other agencies. Labor also provided 

technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. Labor’s 

comments are reproduced in full in appendix IV.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant 

congressional committees, and other interested parties and will make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If you

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

(202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in 

appendix V.

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and 

Income Security Issues

Page 33 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 34 GAO-07-594

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the extent to which 

DVOP and LVER performance information reflects services and outcomes 

for veterans served by these programs, (2) the extent to which

performance information on veterans served by other key programs is 

comprehensive and well integrated across programs in the one-stop 

system, and (3) what Labor is doing to improve the quality of performance 

data and better understand outcomes for veteran job seekers.

To address these objectives, we 

• conducted a nationwide Web-based survey to state workforce 

administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia; 

• conducted site visits to 3 states, during which we interviewed state 

and federal officials, one-stop managers, and program staff; 

• interviewed Labor officials from both the Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service (VETS) and the Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA); 

• analyzed relevant performance data from ETA and VETS; and 

• reviewed our previous work on attributes of successful 

performance measures. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between May 2006 and April 2007. 

To obtain further information on our objectives, we surveyed state 

workforce administrators from November 15 to December 27, 2006. The 

survey addressed all three objectives and included questions about 

performance information for the DVOP and LVER programs, integration of 

data across employment programs serving veterans, and efforts to ensure 

data quality.

Survey 

We developed the survey based on knowledge obtained during our 

preliminary research. This included a literature review and initial 

interviews with officials from the Department of Labor, the National 

Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), and the state of New 

Hampshire, where we conducted our initial site visit. We then obtained a 

list of state workforce administrators from NASWA. We asked state 

administrators to provide information on the DVOP and LVER programs’ 

capacity, other programs within the one-stop system that serve veteran job 

seekers, performance measures and data; and challenges to managing the 

programs. To determine whether respondents would understand the 

questions as intended, we pretested the survey with state officials in 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

5 states. We then made changes to the questions based on comments we 

received during the pretests. 

The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic Web-based 

questionnaires. We sent notification of the survey to the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia in November 2006 and followed up with e-mail 

messages and telephone calls as necessary during November and 

December. All 51 recipients submitted their responses by the end of 

December 2006, providing us with a response rate of 100 percent. We did

not independently verify information obtained through the survey. During

our data analysis we held three follow-up conversations to fill in gaps from 

incomplete survey information. 

Because this survey was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, 

difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of 

information that are available to respondents, or how the data are entered 

into a database can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. 

We took steps during survey development, data collection, and data 

analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, we pretested 

the questionnaire to ensure that questions were clear and understandable. 

Since this was a Web-based survey in which respondents entered their 

responses directly into out database, there was little possibility of data 

entry error. During data analysis, a second, independent analyst checked

all computer programming. Also, to the extent possible, we compared both 

closed and open ended survey responses with our site visit observations. 

While survey results are also subject to different types of systematic errors 

or bias, we do not have reason to believe that respondents falsely reported 

any information for this survey. 

To obtain a detailed understanding of how veteran job seekers are served 

by the one-stop system and how their information is captured, we 

conducted visits to three states: New Hampshire, California, and 

Tennessee. We selected these states based on a range of selection criteria, 

including geographic dispersion, state size and veteran demographics, 

recent state performance in veterans’ programs, and recommendations by

Labor and NASWA. Our site visits at the state level included interviews 

with state workforce agency officials and state directors of Veterans’ 

Employment and Training. We also chose two local one-stops in each state 

and met with local managers and veteran program staff (see table 6). 

Site Visits 

Page 35 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 6: States and Local Areas in Our Study

State site visits Local area City 

New Hampshire New Hampshire Works Concord 

New Hampshire Works Manchester 

Mark Sanders Sacramento Midtown One-Stop 

Career Center

California Sacramento 

San Diego South Metro Career Center San Diego 

Tennessee Clarksville/Montgomery County Career Center Clarksville 

Middle Tennessee Career Center Murfreesboro 

Source: GAO.

During each interview, we used standard interview protocols to obtain 

detailed and comparable information. In our interview with state 

workforce officials, we discussed the role of the state workforce agency in

administering veterans’ employment and training programs, details about 

the programs serving veteran job seekers, views on the current 

performance accountability system, and information about data collection 

and validation. In our interviews with the state directors and their staff, we 

discussed their oversight roles and responsibilities, relationship with the 

state workforce agency, and views on the current performance 

accountability system and data collection. At the local one-stops, we 

discussed the coordination of veteran staff with other programs within the 

one-stop system, priority of service, and data collection and reporting. In 

each state, we also received a tutorial of the state’s data collection 

software. We conducted our site visits between July and November 2006.

As part of our work, we interviewed officials of ETA and VETS, including 

all six Regional Administrators of VETS. We conducted these telephone 

interviews in the following locations: Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, San 

Francisco, and Philadelphia. During each interview, we obtained 

information on regional differences in administering the DVOP and LVER 

programs, views on the current performance measures, and information 

on Labor’s monitoring role in each state. 

Research and Experts 

We also analyzed performance data from the DVOP, LVER, and 

Employment Service programs and reviewed Labor’s guidance. In 

addition, we reviewed relevant literature, including our past work on 

attributes of successful performance measures. We also interviewed 

representatives of NASWA and two private-sector staffing agencies. 

Page 36 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 

Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006

The following tables include 

• baseline performance data by state for the DVOP and LVER 

programs from benchmark program year 2005 (July 1, 2005–June 30,

2006) and 

• negotiated goals by state for the following year, program year 2006. 

Labor and states did not negotiate goals for the DVOP or LVER programs 

for program year 2005, which was a baseline year for performance under 

the new common measures. Four performance measures contribute to 

each program’s performance. For the DVOP program, there is one set of 

measures for all veterans and one set for disabled veterans. For the LVER 

program, there is a set of measures for all veterans and another set for 

recently separated veterans. Each set of measures includes 

• entered employment rate (EER): the number of participants who 

are employed in the first quarter after the exit quarter divided by the 

number of participants who exit during the quarter and 

• employment retention rate (ERR): the number of participants who 

are employed in both the second and third quarters after the exit 

quarter divided by the number of adult participants who exit during 

the quarter.

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor. GAO has not 

verified the accuracy or reliability of these data. 

Page 37 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 

Table 7: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP Program for Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for 

Program Year 2006 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) 

All veterans Disabled veterans 

State 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

2005 

achieved

EER

 2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

 2006 

goal

ERR

Alabama 64% 64% 79% 81% 56% 56% 77% 79%

Alaska 52% 52% 78% 78% 47% 50% 79% 78%

Arizona 57% 58% 80% 80% 53% 57% 75% 77%

Arkansas 66% 66% 81% 80% 59% 55% 78% 70%

California 53% 54% 74% 74% 49% 47% 72% 73%

Colorado 59% 63% 75% 76% 55% 58% 74% 72%

Connecticut 55% 52% 77% 75% 43% 46% 77% 75%

Delaware 60% 60% 76% 83% 55% 63% 87% 88%

District of Columbia 58% 60% 75% 75% 44% 60% 83% 78%

Florida 61% 59% 80% 79% 56% 56% 78% 77%

Georgia 70% 70% 81% 80% 62% 62% 82% 80%

Hawaii 53% 52% 77% 72% 54% 47% 73% 76%

Idaho 67% 67% 84% 83% 59% 59% 79% 80%

Illinois 59% 54% 84% 81% 56% 53% 86% 85%

Indiana 69% 59% 84% 80% 58% 50% 84% 79%

Iowa 66% 75% 83% 87% 62% 72% 82% 86%

Kansas 68% 69% 83% 83% 64% 64% 84% 83%

Kentucky 66% 64% 82% 80% 59% 57% 82% 80%

Louisiana 59% 57% 76% 74% 53% 58% 74% 74%

Maine 64% 73% 80% 81% 63% 73% 80% 77%

Maryland 57% 64% 79% 83% 54% 52% 84% 82%

Massachusetts 57% 59% 80% 80% 48% 48% 75% 81%

Michigan 57% 59% 78% 81% 54% 55% 78% 78%

Minnesota 59% 62% 82% 81% 49% 55% 80% 81%

Mississippi 49% 60% 57% 82% 48% 56% 59% 79%

Missouri 61% 64% 78% 81% 54% 58% 77% 80%

Montana 61% 70% 75% 83% 56% 65% 80% 83%

Nebraska 66% 68% 81% 76% 58% 62% 78% 81%

Nevada 72% 71% 80% 79% 68% 67% 80% 79%

New Hampshire 56% 64% 81% 81% 54% 60% 81% 80%

New Jersey 50% 55% 73% 80% 42% 60% 73% 73%

Page 38 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) 

All veterans Disabled veterans 

State 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

2005 

achieved

EER

 2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

 2006 

goal

ERR

New Mexico 40% 57% 80% 73% 37% 56% 76% 80%

New York 61% 61% 78% 80% 56% 56% 77% 89%

North Carolina 57% 55% 72% 79% 53% 52% 71% 76%

North Dakota 73% 69% 76% 89% 56% 55% 77% 79%

Ohio 65% 60% 84% 82% 58% 55% 81% 82%

Oklahoma 64% 58% 80% 77% 60% 55% 76% 77%

Oregon 55% 56% 78% 76% 42% 46% 74% 76%

Pennsylvania 60% 60% 83% 77% 47% 56% 80% 77%

Puerto Rico 11% 52% 8% 51% 6% 50% 9% 51%

Rhode Island 45% 58% 35% 68% 33% 58% 38% 68%

South Carolina 68% 63% 83% 82% 64% 59% 81% 82%

South Dakota 68% 70% 83% 80% 64% 67% 86% 80%

Tennessee 67% 67% 80% 80% 62% 67% 76% 80%

Texas 68% 63% 85% 82% 55% 55% 86% 82%

Utah 57% 57% 82% 79% 53% 53% 80% 79%

Vermont 79% 75% 87% 73% 82% 77% 72% 87%

Virginia 76% 70% 92% 87% 71% 66% 91% 73%

Washington 71% 68% 85% 86% 67% 64% 85% 86%

West Virginia 65% 66% 84% 88% 56% 60% 74% 85%

Wisconsin 65% 75% 89% 85% 56% 70% 87% 88%

Wyoming 66% 54% 81% 80% 66% 52% 80% 80%

Source: Labor. 

Note: All years refer to program years. 

Page 39 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 

Table 8: Summary of State Performance in the LVER Program for Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for 

Program Year 2006 

Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) 

All veterans Recently separated veterans 

State 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

 2005 

achieved

EER

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

Alabama 63% 62% 78% 82% 66% 61% 75% 80%

Alaska 49% 50% 75% 79% 67% 50% 60% 81%

Arizona 55% 51% 79% 70% 55% 51% 77% 70%

Arkansas 68% 66% 82% 82% 61% 64% 82% 82%

California 53% 55% 74% 76% 52% 55% 77% 78%

Colorado 62% 64% 76% 76% 61% 63% 72% 74%

Connecticut 55% 52% 75% 76% 64% 56% 71% 76%

Delaware 65% 67% 79% 76% 66% 77% 77% 77%

District of Columbia 59% 60% 76% 75% 56% 60% 79% 76%

Florida 59% 58% 80% 79% 60% 58% 79% 79%

Georgia 69% 69% 81% 80% 68% 65% 79% 79%

Hawaii 47% 49% 76% 77% 40% 41% 67% 75%

Idaho 72% 71% 85% 84% 78% 74% 85% 84%

Illinois 61% 58% 85% 83% 60% 56% 84% 81%

Indiana 70% 60% 84% 81% 74% 64% 83% 77%

Iowa 69% 74% 84% 85% 69% 76% 84% 85%

Kansas 66% 66% 82% 83% 76% 75% 84% 84%

Kentucky 67% 65% 83% 80% 65% 64% 81% 80%

Louisiana 61% 57% 73% 74% 62% 57% 70% 74%

Maine 64% 73% 81% 81% 65% 73% 77% 81%

Maryland 58% 69% 78% 82% 60% 76% 88% 90%

Massachusetts 58% 59% 79% 81% 59% 61% 71% 75%

Michigan 57% 59% 78% 81% 61% 61% 77% 79%

Minnesota 69% 63% 83% 81% 50% 50% 71% 81%

Mississippi 50% 60% 61% 82% 46% 56% 58% 80%

Missouri 64% 66% 81% 82% 69% 70% 80% 82%

Montana 53% 70% 71% 83% 53% 65% 72% 83%

Nebraska 63% 65% 81% 82% 63% 64% 81% 82%

Nevada 73% 73% 83% 79% 77% 76% 83% 80%

New Hampshire 60% 64% 83% 83% 61% 64% 80% 80%

New Jersey 51% 55% 77% 80% 55% 65% 76% 80%

Page 40 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance 

in the DVOP and LVER Programs for 

Benchmark Program Year 2005 and 

Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006 

Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) 

All veterans Recently separated veterans 

State 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

 2005 

achieved

EER

2006 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

ERR

2006 

goal

ERR

New Mexico 42% 68% 82% 81% 41% 56% 77% 78%

New York 64% 64% 80% 80% 58% 59% 78% 80%

North Carolina 55% 55% 73% 80% 49% 50% 68% 78%

North Dakota 72% 71% 83% 81% 82% 65% 83% 82%

Ohio 67% 60% 85% 83% 71% 60% 90% 85%

Oklahoma 69% 59% 81% 82% 73% 60% 80% 79%

Oregon 57% 58% 77% 79% 57% 62% 78% 78%

Pennsylvania 62% 60% 85% 81% 58% 60% 83% 81%

Puerto Rico 0% 52% 10% 73% 0% 50% 9% 51%

Rhode Island 33% 58% 47% 69% 35% 59% 40% 57%

South Carolina 66% 61% 83% 83% 70% 63% 82% 83%

South Dakota 74% 72% 85% 68% 57% 69% 86% 76%

Tennessee 68% 67% 82% 82% 68% 67% 79% 80%

Texas 66% 63% 84% 82% 84% 64% 87% 82%

Utah 67% 61% 85% 79% 70% 61% 82% 79%

Vermont 74% 73% 82% 82% 77% 72% 82% 74%

Virginia 75% 69% 92% 88% 69% 60% 85% 81%

Washington 66% 65% 85% 84% 74% 70% 87% 87%

West Virginia 66% 65% 86% 68% 70% 70% 79% 73%

Wisconsin 64% 71% 89% 84% 70% 88% 85% 81%

Wyoming 68% 62% 77% 82% 67% 62% 82% 82%

Source: Labor. 

Note: All years refer to program years. 

Page 41 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix III: Summary of State-Negotiated 

Goals and Performance for Veterans in the 

Employment Service, Program Year 2005 

This table illustrates the negotiated goals and performance achieved by

each state for program year 2005 for veterans in the Wagner-Peyser-funded 

Employment Service. It includes the entered employment and employment 

retention rates for all veterans and disabled veterans within the 

Employment Service, including those in the DVOP and LVER programs. 

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor. GAO has not 

verified the accuracy or reliability of these data. 

Table 9: State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for Veterans in the Employment Service, Program Year 2005

Employment Service

All veterans Disabled veterans 

State 

2005 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2005 

goal 

ERR

2005

achieved

ERR

 2005 

goal

EER

2005 

achieved

EER 

2005 

goal 

ERR

2005

achieved

ERR

Alabama 60% 62% 76% 78% 54% 53% 76% 77%

Alaska 58% 55% 77% 73% 48% 53% 75% 75%

Arizona 58% 59% 74% 80% 54% 56% 68% 78%

Arkansas 53% 67% 70% 81% 53% 63% 70% 78%

California 53% 52% 70% 78% 49% 47% 68% 77%

Colorado 60% 59% 79% 76% 59% 55% 78% 75%

Connecticut 57% 56% 66% 77% 53% 49% 66% 77%

Delaware 55% 59% 75% 78% 50% 55% 73% 83%

District of Columbia 58% 58% 75% 75% 54% 59% 73% 71%

Florida 55% 59% 72% 79% 54% 55% 73% 78%

Georgia 65% 68% 72% 81% 65% 61% 72% 81%

Hawaii 46% 49% 70% 77% 41% 53% 68% 76%

Idaho 50% 71% 71% 83% 43% 65% 70% 81%

Illinois 44% 63% 72% 85% 40% 59% 72% 85%

Indiana 54% 68% 75% 84% 46% 59% 73% 84%

Iowa 58% 67% 72% 83% 56% 62% 70% 83%

Kansas 58% 66% 72% 83% 56% 62% 72% 82%

Kentucky 63% 67% 72% 82% 58% 59% 72% 81%

Louisiana 59% 62% 60% 77% 60% 61% 60% 75%

Maine 58% 64% 70% 80% 58% 62% 68% 78%

Maryland 58% 59% 77% 79% 53% 54% 77% 78%

Massachusetts 57% 58% 78% 79% 48% 47% 72% 74%

Michigan 48% 57% 73% 79% 43% 51% 71% 77%

Minnesota 49% 61% 77% 82% 48% 54% 71% 80%

Appendix III: Summary of State-Negotiated 

Goals and Performance for Veterans in the 

Employment Service, Program Year 2005 

Page 42 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix III: Summary of State-Negotiated 

Goals and Performance for Veterans in the 

Employment Service, Program Year 2005 

Employment Service

All veterans Disabled veterans 

State 

2005 

goal 

EER 

2005 

achieved

EER 

2005 

goal 

ERR

2005

achieved

ERR

 2005 

goal

EER

2005 

achieved

EER 

2005 

goal 

ERR

2005

achieved

ERR

Mississippi 62% 49% 72% 61% 55% 48% 72% 61%

Missouri 58% 62% 72% 79% 52% 58% 70% 78%

Montana 46% 44% 80% 75% 46% 39% 79% 80%

Nebraska 59% 63% 76% 81% 55% 54% 74% 79%

Nevada 58% 72% 72% 82% 54% 68% 72% 81%

New Hampshire 67% 58% 67% 82% 62% 58% 66% 82%

New Jersey 55% 51% 74% 75% 59% 43% 72% 74%

New Mexico 58% 45% 75% 79% 54% 42% 73% 77%

New York 56% 61% 72% 79% 52% 58% 72% 78%

North Carolina 58% 54% 72% 74% 54% 49% 72% 75%

North Dakota 63% 70% 78% 82% 59% 60% 75% 83%

Ohio 57% 65% 78% 84% 51% 59% 74% 82%

Oklahoma 60% 64% 72% 80% 54% 56% 65% 77%

Oregon 55% 57% 75% 80% 48% 46% 73% 76%

Pennsylvania 59% NDA 73% NDA 52% NDA 73% NDA

Puerto Rico NDP NDA NDP NDA NDP NDA NDP NDA

Rhode Island 58% DNV 72% DNV 52% DNV 72% DNV

South Carolina 59% 67% 73% 82% 53% 64% 73% 81%

South Dakota 64% 69% 78% 80% 58% 66% 78% 82%

Tennessee 53% 66% 70% 81% 49% 61% 70% 79%

Texas 56% 65% 80% 85% 50% 55% 77% 86%

Utah 57% 66% 75% 84% 51% 59% 74% 82%

Vermont 59% 73% 73% 82% 54% 78% 73% 76%

Virginia 56% 76% 72% 92% 52% 70% 75% 91%

Washington 50% 70% 80% 85% 44% 67% 79% 85%

West Virginia 58% 66% 72% 85% 58% 61% 72% 81%

Wisconsin 52% 63% 76% 89% 46% 56% 73% 87%

Wyoming 58% NDA 75% NDA 48% NDA 78% NDA

Source: Labor. 

Notes: NDA = No data available / NDP = No data provided / DNV = Data not valid. 

All years refer to program years. 

Page 43 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV of Labor : Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 44 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 45 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 46 GAO-07-594

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov

Dianne Blank, Assistant Director 

Rebecca Woiwode, Analyst-in-Charge 

Chris Morehouse and Beth Faraguna made significant contributions to this 

report in all facets of the work. In addition, Walter Vance assisted in the 

design of the national survey; Gloria Hernandez-Saunders helped with data

analysis; Meeta Engle lent subject matter expertise; Jessica Botsford and 

Richard Burkard provided legal support; and Charlie Willson provided 

writing assistance. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure 

Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496. 

Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Greater Accountability 

and Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve Veterans. GAO-06-357T. 

Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2006. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to

Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans’

Employment Services. GAO-06-176. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations 

on Changes to Veterans’ Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2005. 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 

Relationships. GAO-05-739SP. Washington, D.C.: May 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Performance Reporting: Few Agencies Reported on the Completeness and 

Reliability of Performance Data. GAO-02-372. Washington, D.C.: April 26,

2002. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and 

Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928. 

Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance 

Measurement System Improved, but Further Changes Needed. 

GAO-01-580. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance 

Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. Washington, D.C.: 

July 29, 1999.

Page 47 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Related GAO Products 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal

Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1998. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor 

Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17,

1997. 

The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual 

Performance Plans. GAO/GGD-10.1.20. Washington, D.C.: April 1998.

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An 

Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking.

GAO/GDD/AIMD-10.1.18. Washington, D.C.: February 1998.

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996. 

(130581) Page 48 GAO-07-594 Veterans' Employment and Training Service
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER