United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 8:30 a.m.

Wednesday, May 14, 1997

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress

and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Statement of Stephen P. Backhus, Director

Veterans’ Affairs and Military Health Care Issues

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-97-131

Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to provide our views on the progress

made and challenges faced by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)

in implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As

you know, over the past several years, the Congress has taken steps to

fundamentally change the way federal agencies go about their work. The

Congress took these steps in response to management problems so

common among federal agencies that they demanded governmentwide

solutions. GPRA was passed in 1993 to require agencies to clearly define

their missions, set goals, measure performance, and report on their

accomplishments.

VBA is responsible for administering the Department of Veterans Affairs’

(VA) nonmedical programs that provide financial and other benefits to

veterans, their dependents, and survivors. These benefits include disability

compensation, pensions, rehabilitation assistance, education benefits,

home loan benefits, and insurance coverage. As requested by the

Subcommittee, my statement will center primarily on VBA’s largest

program—the compensation and pension program—which accounts for

more than 90 percent of VBA’s $20 billion appropriation for fiscal year 1996

and provides compensation and pensions to over 3 million veterans and

their survivors. My statement will address the purpose and requirements

of GPRA, the progress VBA has made, and challenges it faces in

implementing the act. The information in this statement is based on our

past work in the area, a review of VBA’s strategic plan, and discussions with

VBA officials.

In summary, VBA has taken an important first step in implementing GPRA,

but this process is an evolving one. To date, VBA has developed a strategic

plan with a mission and goals and has begun consultation with the

Congress and other stakeholders to obtain their views on its plan. For the

compensation and pension program, VBA has identified specific

performance measures for such factors as timeliness and accuracy in

processing claims. However, these measures are primarily process

oriented. As it continues through the planning process, VBA also needs to

ensure that its strategic plan focuses on results, as required by GPRA, such

as those related to the overall purpose of the program, and not merely on

the process used to administer the benefits. In addition, to help ensure

quality service, VBA needs to integrate its strategic plan with VA’s overall

plan and with the plans of other key federal agencies, such as the

Department of Defense and the Department of Labor’s Veterans’

Page 1 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Employment and Training Service. Down the road, VBA will also need to

ensure that it effectively measures and assesses its performance, as

mandated by GPRA, to determine how well its programs are meeting their

goals and making improvements. Our prior work suggests that VBA will be

challenged in implementing GPRA because it has had difficulties in the past

in bringing about program improvements.

Purpose and

Requirements of

GPRA

GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework provided by recent

legislation to bring needed improvements to federal agencies’ management

activities. (Other parts of the framework include the 1990 Chief Financial

Officers Act, the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 1996

Clinger-Cohen Act.) Under GPRA, executive branch agencies are to set

strategic goals, measure their performance, and use that performance

information to make improvements.

GPRA was designed to focus federal agencies’ attention on the results of the

programs they administer—not just on program operations. Instead of

focusing on the amounts of money they spend or the size of their

workloads, agencies are expected to rethink their missions in terms of the

results they provide, develop goals based on their results-oriented

missions, develop strategies for achieving their goals, and measure actual

performance against the goals.

Our reviews of federal programs have found numerous examples of

management problems that GPRA is intended to correct.1

 Several examples

follow:

• Some agencies do not have clear understandings or statements of what

their missions are. GPRA requires agencies to articulate their missions.

• In some program areas, responsibilities are fragmented among several

agencies, which wastes scarce funds, confuses and frustrates customers,

and limits the overall effectiveness of federal efforts to serve customers.

GPRA aims to help agencies to address the fragmentation of program areas,

and to coordinate their strategic planning efforts with other agencies.

• Many agencies measure performance on the basis of their workloads,

rather than on the results of their programs. Instead of the more difficult

task of measuring how well programs are serving customers and achieving

the results intended by the Congress, agencies focus on such measures as

how many applications they process and how quickly they process them.

1

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive Branch Decisionmaking

(GAO/T-GGD-97-43, Feb. 12, 1997).

Page 2 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Thus, agencies do not know, and cannot inform the Congress, how well

their programs are actually achieving their purposes. GPRA requires

agencies to develop results-oriented performance measures.

• Many agencies lack coherent strategies for achieving their missions. In a

time of budget constraints, agencies need to rethink how they manage

their programs, and they need strategies for achieving their missions more

efficiently and effectively. GPRA requires agencies to develop such coherent

strategies.

• Many agencies lack adequate information on program results and costs.

Without such information, the Congress has difficulty making informed

policy and budget decisions. GPRA requires agencies to develop

results-oriented performance measures and to report annually on their

performance. As we noted in a recent report, GPRA aims for a closer and

clearer linkage between spending decisions and the results of federal

programs.2

Also, GPRA requires agencies to consult with the Congress in developing

their strategic plans. This gives the Congress the opportunity to work with

agencies to ensure that their missions and goals are focused on results;

consistent with the Congress’ intent in establishing programs; and

reasonable, in light of fiscal constraints. The products of this consultation

should be clearer guidance to agencies on their missions and goals and

better information to help the Congress make choices among programs,

consider alternative ways to achieve results, and assess how well agencies

are achieving the results the Congress intended for programs.

GPRA requires VA and other agencies to complete their strategic plans by

September 30, 1997. Future actions required under GPRA include the

following:

• Beginning in the fall of 1997 (for the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle),

agencies will submit an annual performance plan to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

• Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 budget, OMB will include a

governmentwide performance plan in the President’s budget submission

to the Congress.

• On March 31 of each year, beginning with 2000, agencies will submit

annual performance reports, comparing their actual performance with

their goals, to the Congress and OMB.

2

Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46,

Mar. 27, 1997).

Page 3 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Progress VBA Has

Made in Implementing

GPRA

In implementing GPRA, VBA’s planning process has been evolving. VBA first

developed a strategic plan in December 1994 covering fiscal years

1996-2001. The plan laid out VBA’s mission, strategic vision, and goals. For

example, the compensation goal was to provide compensation benefits to

veterans who were disabled while in the service and to their eligible

dependents upon the veterans’ death. The pension goal was to provide

pension benefits to veterans of wartime periods who are disabled and do

not meet minimum income requirements, and to their eligible dependents

upon the death of the veterans. However, in a 1995 report, VA’s Inspector

General stated that the goals in the strategic plan could not be measured

because the plan did not contain specific performance information.3

In fiscal year 1995, VBA established a new GPRA strategic planning process.

VBA began developing five “business line” plans corresponding with its

major program areas: compensation and pension, educational assistance,

loan guaranty, vocational rehabilitation and counseling, and insurance.

These business plans were to supplement the overall strategic plan and to

specify program performance objectives and measurements.

In VA’s fiscal year 1998 budget submission, VBA has set forth its business

goals and measures. VBA has identified seven goals for the compensation

and pension program that are oriented toward the efficiency of claims

processing and customer satisfaction.

• Be responsive to customer and stakeholder needs.

• Maintain a 97-percent accuracy rate for claims processing.

• Reduce the time required to process claims.

• Reduce operating costs.

• Ensure the best value for the taxpayers’ dollar.

• Maintain a highly skilled, motivated, and adaptable workforce.

• Improve communications and outreach.

VBA has also identified specific performance measures for the

compensation and pension program. For instance, the measures include

reducing processing time for original compensation claims from 144 days

to 53 days and achieving a 97-percent accuracy rate for claims processing

by fiscal year 2002.

3

Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Implementation of VBA’s Strategic Plan and

Performance Measurements, 5R1-B18-100 (Washington, D.C.: VA, Aug. 25, 1995).

Page 4 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

Challenges VBA Faces As VBA continues its process of implementing GPRA, it faces some difficult

challenges. If the full intent of GPRA is to be achieved, VBA will need to

develop a strategic plan with a clear mission, goals, and performance

measures that are truly results oriented. In addition, VBA will need to

integrate its strategic plan with those of VA and other federal agencies to

ensure quality service, since VBA is not the only agency providing veterans’

benefits. Furthermore, VBA will need to effectively measure and assess its

performance to fully complete the process that GPRA mandates for

improved federal programs.

Focusing on Results VBA has identified specific goals and measures in its current strategic plan,

but again, they tend to be process oriented. While these goals and

measures are important, they do not reflect program results. For example,

the purpose of the disability compensation program is to compensate

veterans for the average loss in earning capacity in civilian occupations

that results from injuries or conditions incurred or aggravated during

military service. Given this program purpose, results-oriented goals would

focus on issues such as whether disabled veterans are indeed being

compensated for average loss in earning capacity and whether VBA is

providing compensation to all of those who should be compensated. VBA

has not yet tackled these types of difficult questions and will need to do so

in consultation with the Congress in order to develop a truly

results-oriented strategic plan. VA officials told us that these issues are

particularly sensitive and that they have begun consultations with the

Congress and other stakeholders about the purpose of the compensation

and pension program. However, no final agreements have been made to

date.

In the past, VBA has not focused on results. For example, in 1984, 1992, and

again in 1996, we reported that VBA’s vocational rehabilitation program did

not focus on helping disabled veterans find jobs, despite a 1980 law (P.L.

96-466) requiring it to do so.4

 Instead, VBA continued to focus on sending

veterans to training, an intermediate step in finding jobs. Consequently,

VBA has placed relatively few disabled veterans in jobs.

VBA is aware that it needs to focus more on its benefits programs’

outcomes for veterans rather than only on the process used to administer

4

VA Can Provide More Employment Assistance to Veterans Who Complete Its Vocational

Rehabilitation Program (GAO/HRD-84-39, May 23, 1984); Vocational Rehabilitation: Better VA

Management Needed to Help Disabled Veterans Find Jobs (GAO/HRD-92-100, Sept. 4, 1992); and

Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Continues to Place Few Disabled Veterans in Jobs (GAO/HEHS-96-155,

Sept. 3, 1996).

Page 5 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

the benefits. In its fiscal year 1998 budget submission, VBA stated that,

historically, VA has engaged in little policy or program analysis of its

benefits programs and that this work is needed if the intended results of

GPRA are to be fully achieved. VBA acknowledges that additional data and

research will be required, including formal program evaluations and

extensive consultation with stakeholders.

Integrating Strategic Plans As VBA continues its strategic planning, it will need to integrate its plan

with those of the rest of VA and those of other federal agencies that

support the veterans’ benefits programs. For example, in determining the

eligibility of a veteran for disability compensation, VBA usually requires the

veteran to undergo a medical examination, which is generally performed

by a Veterans Health Administration physician. Similarly, VBA looks to the

Department of Defense for information about the medical conditions of

veterans while they were in the military and to the Department of Labor

for veterans’ employment and training experiences. VBA will need to

determine what impact these other entities will have on the success of

VBA’s performance.

Currently, VA is in the process of developing a departmentwide strategic

plan. VBA is participating in this planning effort. In addition, VA has

initiatives under way to improve its information exchange with the

Department of Defense. Furthermore, as we recently testified before this

Subcommittee, the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and

Training Service has developed a draft strategic plan and performance

measures.5 VBA will need to continue to coordinate with these agencies

that are critical to veterans’ benefits programs to ensure overall high

quality service to veterans.

Measuring and Assessing

Performance

Once VBA has identified results-oriented goals, it will need to effectively

measure and assess its performance. As mandated by GPRA, federal

agencies are required to link their performance measures to their annual

budget requests. Federal agencies are expected to limit their performance

measures to a few that

• best demonstrate how the agency’s goals are met;

• allow agency managers to balance quality, costs, customer satisfaction,

stakeholder concerns, and other matters; and

5

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Focusing on Program Results to Improve Agency

Performance (GAO/T-HEHS-97-129, May 7, 1997).

Page 6 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Veterans’ Affairs: Veterans Benefits

Administration’s Progress and Challenges in

Implementing GPRA

• are linked directly to the offices in each agency that are directly

responsible for making programs work.

The Congress, in enacting GPRA, recognized that measuring the results of

many federal programs will be difficult and, as a result, permitted GPRA to

be phased in over several years. Measuring results will be a challenge

because the link between program operations and results can be difficult

to establish. Also, a result may occur years after an agency has completed

a task (for example, awarding a research grant). Nevertheless, agencies

are expected to use the performance and cost data they collect to

continuously improve their operations, identify gaps between their

performance and their performance goals, and develop plans for closing

performance gaps.

VBA will need to develop appropriate performance measures and collect

adequate and reliable performance and cost data to effectively measure

and assess its performance. VBA will have to balance the costs of data

collection against the need for complete, accurate, and consistent data.

Conclusion VBA is aware that it has much work to do to fully implement GPRA. VBA’s

success in implementing the act will depend on how successful it is in

ensuring that its strategic plan focuses on results, how well it integrates its

plan with the plans of VA and other key agencies, and how effectively it

measures and assesses its performance in meeting its goals and bringing

about program improvements. The Congress will play an important role in

consulting with VBA in developing results-oriented goals and overseeing

VBA’s efforts to implement GPRA.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony this morning. I would be

pleased to respond to any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee

may have.

Contributors For more information on this testimony, call Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Acting

Associate Director, at (202) 512-7202 or Irene P. Chu, Assistant Director, at

(202) 512-7102. Gregory D. Whitney and Mark Trapani also contributed to

this statement.

(105752) Page 7 GAO/T-HEHS-97-131
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100