VA Education Benefits: Actions Taken, but Outreach and Oversight Could Be Improved
Published: 2011-02-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided $9 billion in education benefits to service-members and veterans in fiscal year 2010, mostly through the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. In providing education benefits, VA relies on State Approving Agencies (SAA) to approve schools; and on schools to report students' enrollment status. GAO was asked to determine: (1) what is known about the effectiveness of outreach to and support for individuals applying for VA education benefits, particularly those with disabilities; (2) the role of school officials and challenges they face in their role; and (3) how VA monitors and oversees states' and schools' implementation of these benefits. GAO reviewed VA reports and plans, conducted a nationally representative survey of school officials, interviewed VA and state officials in four states, and reviewed recent statutory changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: VA has various activities to reach out to and support individuals who are eligible for education benefits. For example, VA reaches eligible servicemembers through military separation briefings and has sponsored national marketing campaigns for the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. General awareness of VA education benefits among servicemembers and veterans is high, according to program stakeholders. In fiscal year 2010, more than 700,000 individuals were served by these programs. However, stakeholders also identified some limitations with VA's outreach and support. For instance, veterans' service organizations and school officials stated that some servicemembers and veterans may have difficulty determining which of VA's various programs may be right for them. In addition, VA primarily targets its outreach and support for its education benefits to the general population of servicemembers and veterans, not necessarily those with disabilities, because eligibility is based on length of military service and not disability status. Finally, little is known about the effectiveness of VA's outreach and support because VA has not established performance measures for these activities. School certifying officials' core responsibilities--primarily certifying student enrollment to VA and reporting enrollment changes--have become more complex under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and officials identified challenges such as obtaining timely, comprehensive policy guidance and training from VA. For example, school officials must determine the tuition and fees that the Post-9/11 GI Bill will cover, which varies based on the length of active-duty military service and other factors. In our survey, school officials reported performing roles beyond those specifically required by VA, such as helping students apply for benefits. Although the majority of school officials were generally satisfied with VA's implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, they cited a range of challenges, such as the lack of a Post-9/11 GI Bill policy manual. In addition, although VA provides training through conferences and its Web site, many officials did not participate due to other job responsibilities, travel costs, and lack of awareness about training opportunities. VA lacks comprehensive information on the effectiveness of its oversight of SAAs and schools. VA monitors SAAs, in part, by reviewing reports on the number of approved schools and completed site visits, but this approach has limitations. For example, VA has not set minimum standards for SAAs' reviews of student files during their site visits to schools and, therefore, lacks assurance that data collected from these file reviews are valid and comparable. Also, VA has not completed its own required school audits in recent years. Most recently, VA suspended its audits during fiscal year 2010 in order to reassign compliance staff to help process a backlog of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. Although VA has resumed its audits, there are indications that it may not be able to complete all required audits in fiscal year 2011. Moreover, VA does not compile and review findings from its own or other entities' audits of schools that would, going forward, allow it to identify trends and better target its oversight of schools.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that VA establish outcome-oriented performance measures for outreach and support activities; improve communication with school officials; and undertake a systematic review of its oversight of SAAs and schools. VA concurred with four recommendations and concurred in principle with one recommendation aimed at strengthening oversight. VA noted a number of actions already taken in this area. GAO encourages VA to address all aspects of this recommendation moving forward.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided more than $9  billion in education benefits to help more than 700,000 servicemembers  and veterans pursue higher education or training in fiscal year 2010. A  significant portion of those funds were distributed through the Post-9/11  Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), which  began offering benefits in August 2009 and increased education benefits  for many individuals who served on active duty after September 10, 2001.  The Post-9/11 GI Bill program added complexity to VA’s education claims  process because the benefits are highly individualized and based on  factors such as length of service and the location of the school a  servicemember or veteran is attending. The claims process also requires  accurate and timely information from state agencies, known as State  Approving Agencies (SAA), and institutions of higher learning (schools).  In the first semester that Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were available,  servicemembers and veterans filed hundreds of thousands of claims, and  VA faced challenges processing these and its other education claims in a  timely manner. In December 2009, for example, VA reported it took an  average of 60 days to process an education claim, compared to its target of  24 days.
VA currently has four active education benefit programs for  servicemembers and veterans, and individuals may be eligible for more  than one of these programs. Some have raised questions about whether  individuals fully understand the range of benefit options and whether they  need assistance in determining the program that best fits their needs.  Moreover, servicemembers and veterans with disabilities, such as those  with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, may have  greater difficulty understanding and applying for VA education benefits.  Individuals with disabilities also can receive education benefits under VA’s  Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program. However, if  they elect to receive Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, they are ineligible for the  case management, individualized counseling support, and other benefits  that the VR&E program offers.
To obtain information on VA’s implementation of these education benefit  programs, you asked us to examine (1) what is known about the  effectiveness of VA’s outreach to and support for individuals applying for  education benefits, particularly for servicemembers and veterans with  disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain  injury; (2) the role of school officials and the challenges they face in  fulfilling their responsibilities for VA’s education benefit programs; and (3)  how VA monitors and oversees states’ and schools’ implementation of its  education benefit programs. While our scope included VA’s four active  education benefit programs, we had a particular focus on the Post-9/11 GI  Bill, as it is the newest and most complex.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws,  regulations, and other agency documents and conducted interviews with  VA officials and key program stakeholders, including veterans service  organizations and national organizations representing SAAs and school  officials. For our first objective, we assessed VA’s performance objectives  and measures related to outreach and support for servicemembers and  veterans against requirements of the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993, and key attributes for performance measures we  developed in prior work. We also conducted two discussion groups with  VA education beneficiaries enrolled in schools in Oklahoma and Virginia.  For our second objective, we conducted a nationally representative web- based survey of school certifying officials—school employees who are  responsible for verifying student enrollment for VA—in the 50 states and  the District of Columbia. We drew a simple random sample of 273  certifying officials from VA’s public Web Enabled Approval Management  System (WEAMS) database of 6,403 active facilities, as of August 2010.  We received a response rate of 71 percent. We assessed VA’s  coordination with these officials using government internal control  standards for coordinating with external parties that have a significant  impact on agency goals. For our third objective, we reviewed VA reports  and data that offered a national perspective on VA’s monitoring and  oversight of SAAs and schools. We also examined VA’s oversight activit in four states: California, Georgia, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. We  selected these states—one in each of VA’s four regions for processing  education benefits—for reasons such as variation in the number of  schools and students within a state that have been approved to partic in VA education benefit programs and program expenditures. In these  ipate  states, we interviewed relevant VA and state officials and reviewed the  most recent audit and site visit reports from VA and SAAs for randomly  selected schools. We compared VA’s policies and procedures to  government internal control standards. We assessed the reliability of  VA’s data on its toll-free hotline performance measures and active facilitie by reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that  produced them and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We  determined that the data on performance measures were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report. We determined that the data on  active facilities were not sufficiently reliable for our purposes, primarily  due to missing data on school certifying officials, and we conducted  additional work—including performing Internet searches and making  telephone calls to schools to gather contact information for school  certifying officials—to overcome this limitation. See appendix I for a  detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2010 to February  2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: On June 30, 2008, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of  2008, which established the new Post-9/11 GI Bill program, was signed by  the President. The Post-9/11 GI Bill program adopted a new way for VA to  deliver education benefits. Whereas VA’s other education benefit programs  provide a single, standard monthly payment directly to students enrolled  in school, the Post-9/11 GI Bill requires VA to send multiple payments to  both students and schools (see fig. 1).
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are based, in part, on an individual’s length of  active-duty service. In order to be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill,  individuals generally must have served at least 90 days on active duty after  September 10, 2001. However, in order to be eligible for the maximum  benefits payable, individuals must have at least 36 months of aggregate  active-duty service (see table 1). Those with less than 36 months of service  receive a percentage of the maximum benefit payable. For example, if a  veteran had 25 months of active-duty service, he or she would be eligible  for 80 percent of the maximum allowable tuition and fee, housing, and  book payments. In addition, in order to be eligible for the housing  allowance, individuals must be enrolled in school more than half-time and  taking at least one course on campus. Active-duty servicemembers are  not eligible for the housing allowance or the books and supplies stipend.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill covers up to the full cost of tuition and fees for a  program of education at any public school. However, these costs cannot  exceed the highest undergraduate tuition and fee rates charged to in-state  residents by public schools in each state. The maximum tuition and fee  rates, calculated separately for each state by its SAA, vary widely. Among  states, the highest tuition rate for the 2010-2011 school year is $1,549 per  credit hour in Texas, while the lowest is $99 per credit hour in Wyoming.  The highest fee rate is $85,255 per term in Utah, while the lowest is $310  in Washington, D.C. Veterans attending private schools or graduate  programs may receive additional benefits to cover costs that exceed this  amount, through VA’s Yellow Ribbon program.
Whereas the Post-9/11 GI Bill covers only education or training programs  offered by institutions of higher learning, servicemembers and veterans  can use VA’s other education benefits to obtain education or training  offered through non-college degree, certificate, on-the-job training,  apprenticeship programs, flight, and other programs.
In addition to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA has three other education benefit  programs for servicemembers and veterans (see app. III for a description  of these programs):    Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty;    Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve; and    Reserve Educational Assistance Program.
Eligible individuals can receive up to 36 months of benefits under any one  of VA’s education programs. However, one difference between the  programs is that individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill have up to 15 years  after they separate from the military to use the benefit. VA’s other  education programs generally have a 10-year window to use benefits. The  Post-9/11 GI Bill also uniquely allows eligible servicemembers to transfer  their benefits to a spouse or dependents. In order to do so,  servicemembers generally must commit an additional 4 years of military  service. Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits cannot be transferred to a dependent  after separation from the military. Finally, in order to receive benefits  under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, eligible individuals must make what is called  an “irrevocable election” and relinquish their entitlement to any other VA  education benefits.
On January 4, 2011, the president signed the Post-9/11 Veterans  Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, which revises the Post- 9/11 GI Bill program. For example, the law expands the Post-9/11 GI Bill  to cover non-degree granting programs, apprenticeships or other on-the- job training programs, flight training programs, and training by  correspondence. The law also simplifies tuition and fee benefits by  eliminating the state maximum tuition and fee rates and capping benefits  at all private and foreign schools at $17,500 per year. In addition, the law  allows individuals enrolled exclusively online to receive a portion of the  housing allowance, but also calculates the housing allowance for all  beneficiaries based on their rate of pursuit (that is, the percentage of a full- time courseload). Many of these provisions are scheduled to take effect in  the early fall of 2011. See appendix II for our overview of these changes.
subsections: section_title: Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits for Servicemembers and Veterans with Disabilities
paragraphs: Nearly 2 million servicemembers and veterans have served in military  operations in either Afghanistan or Iraq since 2001, and some of these  individuals may have disabilities incurred or aggravated due to their  military service. In particular, post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic  brain injury are considered to be signature disabilities of these recent  conflicts. Post-traumatic stress disorder can develop after military combat  and exposure to the threat of death or serious injury. Traumatic brain  injury—an injury resulting from a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating  head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain—is one of the  most common wounds of the current military operations in Afghanistan  and Iraq. The nature of these conflicts, especially the widespread use of  improvised explosive devices, increases the likelihood that  servicemembers will be exposed to incidents that can cause a traumatic  brain injury.
We have previously found that veterans with disabilities are an emerging  population in higher education, in part due to the enactment of the Post- 9/11 GI Bill. While some servicemembers and veterans with disabilities  may be attending school using the Post-9/11 GI Bill or other VA education  benefits, others may choose to attend school using benefits through VA’s  Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program. The focus  of VR&E is to provide employment for veterans with disabilities, and we  have reported in the past that the majority of program participants chose  to pursue employment through longer-term education and training, instead  of more immediate employment through VR&E’s job placement or other  services. The benefits that VR&E participants receive are similar to those  offered by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but there are some key differences. For  example, while both programs offer an allowance for living or housing  expenses, the Post-9/11 GI Bill allowance may be more generous,  depending on where an individual is attending school and other factors.  On the other hand, while the Post-9/11 GI Bill pays tuition and fees up to a  certain rate, the VR&E program pays full tuition, fees, books, supplies, and  other expenses for educational programs, including those at private  schools. If individuals elect to receive Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, they are  ineligible for the case management, individualized counseling support, and  other benefits that the VR&E program offers.
section_title: Implementation of VA Education Benefit Programs by VA, States, and Schools
paragraphs: Within VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration, the Education Service  division provides policy and program guidance for VA’s education benefit  programs. Staff in VA’s four regional processing offices implement the  programs, including making benefit decisions and conducting oversight of  schools.
State agencies and schools play key roles in helping implement VA’s  education benefit programs (see fig. 2). Specifically, VA contracts with  SAAs to determine whether schools and training programs offer education  of sufficient quality. SAAs review and approve individual education and  training programs at schools leading to a degree, certificate, or diploma.  SAAs are created or designated by the governor of each state and staffed  by state employees but are federally funded and responsible for approving  and supervising those programs consistent with federal requirements.  While SAAs are responsible for approving programs at schools for VA  education benefits, other government agencies also oversee schools, such  as the U.S. Department of Education (Education) for the purposes of  federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of  1965, as amended. In addition, schools may be licensed by states and  approved by regional and national accrediting agencies.
School employees, known as school certifying officials, are required to  certify students’ enrollment status to VA and inform the agency of any  changes during the semester, maintain students’ files, and make them  available for inspection by VA and the SAA, among other responsibilities.  All schools approved to receive VA’s education benefits must have a  school certifying official. VA pays schools $7 annually for each student  receiving these benefits to help defray the costs associated with fulfilling  reporting requirements.
section_title: VA Maintains Outreach and Support Activities but Does Not Assess Their Effectiveness
subsections: section_title: VA Has Various Activities to Reach Out to and Support Servicemembers and Veterans
paragraphs: VA has a variety of activities to reach out to and support servicemembers  and veterans who may be eligible for education benefits. VA reaches out to  eligible servicemembers by providing information at Transition Assistance  Program (TAP) briefings offered at the time they separate from the  military and has sponsored marketing campaigns for the new Post-9/11 GI  Bill. VA’s fiscal year 2010 campaign featured advertisements on Web sites  like www.military.com, and magazines, such as Marine Corps Times, in  addition to placing the Post-9/11 GI Bill logo and Web address on a  NASCAR racecar.
VA provides support during the process of applying for education benefits  by posting information on its Web site and through social media channels  like Facebook, answering questions by phone and e-mail, and offering free  educational and vocational counseling. For example, VA staff at the toll- free hotline, known as the Education Call Center, answer individuals’  questions about benefits and can provide information on the status of their  claims. VA’s Web-based Right Now Web service provides similar services  via secure e-mail. Educational and vocational counseling is provided by  VA’s VR&E program in VA’s regional offices and is available to individuals  who are eligible for VA education benefits, regardless of disability status.  This counseling, which may include assessments of individuals’ interests  and aptitudes, is designed to help individuals select a career path and  address any barriers to reaching educational or vocational goals. A senior  VA official told us that the counseling does not typically include helping  individuals determine which VA education benefit program to choose, if  they are eligible for more than one. See table 2 for a summary of VA’s  current outreach and support activities for servicemembers and veterans  who are eligible for education benefits. VA also is planning to provide  students with the ability to check the status of their education claim online  and perform other self-service functions.
Program stakeholders—veterans service organizations, school officials,  and students receiving VA education benefits—told us that VA has taken  steps to enhance its outreach and support. For example, officials from  veterans’ organizations and school officials said that VA’s new social  media presence and marketing campaigns have helped reach younger  servicemembers and veterans. In addition, stakeholders had positive  feedback for a recent redesign of the GI Bill Web site that highlighted the  three main steps in applying for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
section_title: Program Stakeholders Identified Some Limitations in VA’s Outreach and Support
paragraphs: While program stakeholders told us that general awareness of VA  education benefits among servicemembers and veterans was high, they  also identified some limitations. For example, officials from veterans’  organizations told us that some individuals may have difficulty  determining which VA education program may be right for them. Similarly,  VA does not provide consumer information on various schools and  programs, such as graduation rates or loan default rates, nor does it  provide links on the GI Bill Web site to consumer-focused information  generated by other entities. In contrast, Education’s College Navigator  Web site, launched in September 2007, aggregates information on student  outcomes, including graduation and retention rates, loan default rates, as  well as information on the costs of attendance and available scholarships.
Likewise, based on our survey, an estimated 74 percent of school  certifying officials reported that servicemembers and veterans need more  information on issues such as the impact of transferring from an existing  VA education benefit program into the Post-9/11 GI Bill (see fig. 3).  School certifying officials and a veterans service organization official told  us that making an informed choice is particularly important because the  decision to use benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is irrevocable. For  instance, these stakeholders, as well as VA officials, told us that some  students have transferred from the Montgomery GI Bill to the Post-9/11 GI  Bill and, after doing so, realized that they would have had more months to  use their benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.
Several veterans service organization officials, students, and school  officials also told us that TAP briefings are offered at a time when  separating servicemembers may not be ready to hear about their education  benefits. While some students we interviewed said the briefings were  helpful, others told us that the slide presentation format was not effective  and often provided too much information for them to readily digest. We  reviewed the May 2010 version of the presentation, and about a third of  the 247 slides in the presentation were dedicated to education benefits. VA  is in the process of redesigning TAP to make its presentation shorter and  more effective in holding participants’ attention.
Stakeholders also told us that servicemembers and veterans had difficulty  getting through to VA staff at the toll-free hotline. Several of the students  we interviewed said they waited a long time or had to call several times  before speaking to a call center agent. Officials from a national association  of school certifying officials, as well as nine officials in open-ended  responses to our survey, also expressed concerns with long wait times. In  addition, an official from this national association and 14 school officials  in our survey also questioned the accuracy or consistency of information  call center agents provide to students and schools. Our analysis of VA’s  toll-free hotline performance data from August 2009—the first month Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits were available—through the end of fiscal year 2010  showed that the average wait times for each month ranged from about 3 to  8 minutes. In addition, a high percentage of calls were blocked (received a  busy signal) or abandoned (caller hung up before reaching a call center  agent) during peak periods (see fig. 4). We found that the percentage of  blocked calls was higher in months with high call volume—notably, in the  months around the fall and spring enrollment periods. For example, in  September 2010, there were 1.3 million calls placed to VA’s toll-free hotline  during business hours. Sixty-three percent of these calls were blocked,  well in excess of VA’s performance target of 12 percent.
To address high blocked-call rates, a VA official told us that the call center  is planning to switch to a new phone system in fiscal year 2011 that has the  capacity to handle more calls and offers more options, such as the ability  for a caller to request an automated call-back from the system when he or  she reaches the top of the queue. In addition, VA is beginning to track the  average speed to answer calls, as well as the proportion of abandoned  calls that were terminated by the caller within 160 seconds, as the agency  believes these calls were abandoned for reasons that were outside of the  call center’s control.
In addition, program stakeholders told us that awareness of VA’s free  educational and vocational counseling is very low. Most of the students  and veterans service organization officials we interviewed were not aware  that VA offered this service and an estimated 75 percent of school  certifying officials we surveyed reported not being aware of VA’s  educational and vocational counseling. While the VR&E program conducts  some outreach for this benefit among servicemembers and veterans with  disabilities, VA education program officials told us they have not  conducted much outreach to promote this service to the general  population of eligible individuals beyond posting information on the GI  Bill application and Web site.
section_title: VA Targets Outreach and Support for Education Benefits to All Eligible Individuals, Not Necessarily to Those with Disabilities
paragraphs: Most of VA’s outreach and support activities for education benefits are  targeted to the general population of servicemembers and veterans, not  necessarily to those with disabilities. VA education program and VR&E  officials told us that the VR&E program conducts outreach to  servicemembers and veterans with disabilities. Education program  officials told us that they do not conduct targeted outreach to individuals  with disabilities because eligibility for VA education benefits is based on  length of military service, rather than disability status.
VR&E officials told us that they have a number of efforts to reach out to  and support individuals with disabilities. For example, through the Coming  Home to Work program, VR&E staff in VA’s regional offices and in certain  military treatment facilities work with servicemembers who are on  medical hold or awaiting the medical board process to develop a plan for  obtaining training and finding a job if they are unable to return to active  duty. VR&E also offers Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP)  briefings, which are held in conjunction with TAP but focus solely on the  VR&E program and educational and vocational counseling. In addition to  these outreach activities, VR&E counselors provide one-on-one support to  individuals during the application process. For example, VR&E counselors  usually meet face-to-face with individuals who are considering applying  for VR&E benefits to explain the program. Counselors also may explain  the difference between VR&E benefits and those available under VA’s  education benefit programs if an individual is eligible for both. For  individuals who are found eligible for VR&E services, counselors also  provide case management and support while they pursue education or  training and look for employment. As mentioned previously, individuals  who choose to receive benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are not eligible  for this case management and support.
VR&E has a new pilot program, called VetSuccess on Campus, currently  operating at eight colleges and universities across the country. Through  this program, VR&E counselors have offices on campus to provide  vocational testing, career and academic counseling, and readjustment  counseling services to support servicemembers and veterans. All  servicemembers and veterans attending these schools are eligible for  assistance, regardless of their disability status. According to a VR&E  official, the VetSuccess on Campus office is designed to provide  information and assistance on all benefits, including VR&E and VA  education benefits. For example, if a student wants to apply for education  benefits, the VR&E counselor can refer them to a point of contact within  VA’s education programs or walk them through the application process.
VA education program and VR&E officials told us that these two programs  generally do not coordinate their outreach, but the agency has taken some  steps in this area. VA education program officials told us they have  coordinated with VR&E on policy and have provided some information,  briefings, and training on VA education programs, but the two programs  mostly conduct separate outreach efforts. For example, VA education  program officials told us that they have provided information and  materials to the VetSuccess on Campus program, but that has been the  extent of their involvement with the program. However, in May 2010, VA  established a new office—the Benefits Assistance Service. A Benefits  Assistance Service official told us that, while the role of the office is still  evolving, it is designed to provide guidance and coordination for outreach  across veterans’ benefit programs.
section_title: VA Has Few Efforts to Measure the Effectiveness of Outreach and Support Activities
paragraphs: Little is known about the effectiveness of VA’s education outreach and  support because VA currently does not have outcome-oriented  performance measures for these activities. While VA has an agencywide  performance objective to educate and empower veterans and their  families through proactive outreach, the agency lacks specific  performance measures to assess its efforts in relation to its education  programs (see fig. 5). As required by law, VA produces a biennial report  on its outreach activities. However, this report is generally focused on the  number and type of VA’s education outreach activities rather than the  results. In addition, while VA’s education program estimates the number  of people who view or listen to a particular Post-9/11 GI Bill online, radio,  or print advertisement, it has not determined the extent to which its  outreach campaign has been effective in informing or changing the  behavior of target audiences. We have found in prior work that key  practices for consumer education campaigns include establishing outcome  metrics to measure success in achieving the objectives of the campaign. In  this instance, such metrics could be employed to evaluate how well VA’s  campaign influenced the attitudes and behaviors of servicemembers and  veterans.
In addition, VA also does not have measures to assess the quality of the  support it provides to individuals seeking education benefits. While VA has  two performance measures on the percentage of toll-free hotline calls that  are blocked or abandoned, it has not established a measure for the  accuracy of the information provided by call center staff. VA officials told  us that call center supervisors review 5 calls per month for each staff  member and assess, among other items, the accuracy of information they  provide to callers. However, VA does not calculate accuracy for the call  center as a whole but recently implemented a survey to assess callers’  satisfaction with the call center. In addition, VA does not have  performance measures for the timeliness and quality of answers provided  to servicemembers’ and veterans’ questions through Right Now Web. A VA  official told us they try to respond to inquiries within 5 days and have data  on the number of inquiries that have been pending for longer than this  time period, but do not track the average response time for all inquiries. In  our prior work, we found that agency performance measures should cover  governmentwide priorities, such as the quality of service. Although VA  lacks such measures for its call center or Right Now Web, other federal  programs have made them a part of their quality assurance process. For  example, Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid has established a  target to provide correct answers the first time for 95 percent of the calls  to its Customer Support Center for schools, students, parents, and others  receiving federal student loans, and measures its progress toward meeting  this target.
section_title: School Certifying Officials’ Roles Have Become More Complex and Challenging
subsections: section_title: The Complexity of School Officials’ Roles Has Increased Along with Their Workload
paragraphs: School certifying officials’ core VA responsibilities have become more  complex and time-consuming with the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI  Bill. These officials are required to report the enrollment of each student  receiving VA education benefits, including the credit hours, tuition, fees,  and the beginning and end dates of terms, among other duties (see table  3). According to school certifying officials we interviewed, certification  was simpler and took less time per student prior to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  For example, under the Montgomery GI Bill, certifying officials typically  had to report tuition and fees only if a student was enrolled less than half- time or was on active duty. Moreover, although certifying officials’ roles  have become more complex and time-consuming, they often do not  perform VA responsibilities full time. Based on our survey, an estimated 83  percent serve as school certifying officials in addition to other  responsibilities.
According to our survey, school certifying officials have several other  major program responsibilities they fulfill in addition to those specifically  required by VA (see fig. 6). For example, we estimate that 51 percent of  school certifying officials consider coordinating with other campus  offices, such as the school business office, on benefits issues as a major  responsibility. Those we interviewed also said that this coordination has  become necessary with Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition and fee payments being  sent directly to schools. Often, this is the first time that school certifying  officials have had to interact with the business office and other campus  offices. For example, school officials reported that business offices have  received (1) payments for amounts that were different from what the  school certifying official had reported to VA, (2) duplicate payments for  the same student, and (3) other payments that did not have adequate  information to identify the student or term. School officials we  interviewed reported that they often serve as the liaison between VA and  the school business office, because the business office may not be familiar  with VA education benefit program policies.
In addition, we estimate that nearly 40 percent of school certifying  officials view helping students apply for VA education benefits as one of  their major responsibilities. Although VA considers this support a  voluntary activity, school certifying officials stated they often get  questions from servicemembers and veterans because they are frequently  the only people students interact with face-to-face to get answers to their  questions about VA education benefits. A majority of school certifying  officials (64 percent) in our survey reported it would be helpful or very  helpful to receive more information about how to help servicemembers  and veterans select the right VA education benefit program when they are  eligible for multiple programs.
School certifying officials’ workload also has grown as a result of their  additional required and voluntary responsibilities and greater numbers of  students receiving VA education benefits. School certifying officials we  interviewed, as well as eight certifying officials in open-ended responses to  our survey, told us that their workloads have grown due to factors such as  greater reporting requirements for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and efforts needed  to resolve payment issues. According to VA’s 2010 performance and  accountability report, the number of participants in VA education benefit  programs has increased from about 460,000 in 2008 to 634,000 in 2010, an  increase of 38 percent. VA and school officials we interviewed attributed  this increase to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. For example, one school official we  interviewed said she had certified 25 percent more veterans than prior to  Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation.
section_title: School Certifying Officials Were Generally Satisfied, but Reported a Lack of Comprehensive Policy Guidance, among Other Challenges
paragraphs: Although about 62 percent of school certifying officials stated they were  generally or very satisfied with VA’s implementation of the Post-9/11 GI  Bill, officials identified a range of challenges in fulfilling their  responsibilities under the program (see fig. 7). About 33 percent of  school certifying officials cited great or very great challenges in checking  on the status of students’ VA claims and payments. For example, in  interviews and in comments to our survey, school officials discussed  delays in expected payments and difficulty getting through to VA’s toll-free hotline when they had questions.
In addition, school certifying officials cited challenges due to the lack of a  comprehensive source of policy information on the Post-9/11 GI Bill  program, such as a VA policy manual. An estimated 32 percent of school  officials in our survey stated that the lack of a manual was a great or very  great challenge, and an additional 23 percent stated this was a moderate  challenge. VA has not created a policy manual for the Post-9/11 GI Bill  since the program was implemented, nor has the agency published a  policy or procedural manual for any of its other education benefits  programs.
VA provides policy information to certifying officials through policy  advisories, but we found an example where the information in such  advisories may not provide sufficient guidance. Specifically, VA issued a  policy advisory in October 2009 to clarify how school certifying officials  should report tuition and fee charges when the student is receiving  discounted tuition or other tuition assistance. This policy advisory  explains that school officials should deduct non-Title IV federal assistance  before reporting tuition and fees to VA. However, the advisory does not  include a complete list of federally funded tuition assistance programs.  For example, although certain National Guard tuition assistance programs  are federally funded, they are not included on the list. One school  certifying official we spoke with said that school officials may not know  whether tuition assistance provided by the National Guard is provided  with federal or state funds. As a result, schools may find it difficult to  ensure that students are not receiving funds from both VA and other  federally funded programs for the same courses.
VA officials told us that school certifying officials generally receive policy  advisories via e-mail from their state’s VA education liaison representative,  but this approach may not be sufficient for providing consistent and timely  policy information. For example, some officials from schools with  campuses in more than one state told us that the timeliness of providing  these advisories can vary among education liaison representatives. In  addition, a senior VA official told us that some education liaison  representatives expand on VA policy advisories to assist schools within  their state, although others do not. Further, VA has not catalogued all  policy advisories sent to school officials in a central location accessible to  all schools. In contrast, Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid provides  policy and other program information to schools through a Web site  (Information for Financial Aid Professionals). The Web site was developed  to provide schools with electronic access to operational and policy  guidance to administer the Title IV student financial aid programs. Schools  can sign up to receive regular bulletins that compile all information  distributed to schools.
In addition, school certifying officials faced challenges in obtaining  adequate training on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, in part because they reported  that they were too busy with other job responsibilities or were unaware of  training opportunities. VA training opportunities are available through  several channels: one-on-one training provided by VA education liaison  representatives; conferences; and an online training module available on  VA’s Web site. However, school certifying officials were not always able to  participate. While an estimated 65 percent received training on the Post- 9/11 GI Bill, mostly through VA conferences, others stated they did not  attend because they were too busy with other job responsibilities. In  addition, two school certifying officials and an SAA official we interviewed  told us that sometimes school officials cannot attend training conferences  due to the cost of travel. Moreover, an estimated 85 percent of school  certifying officials had not taken VA’s online training module, mostly  because they were unaware it was available. Of those who stated they did  complete the online training, about half of the officials said that it was  effective or very effective. While VA considers taking VA-sponsored  training a part of school certifying officials’ responsibilities, VA does not  track the extent to which school officials participate in any training.
School certifying officials also reported needing more information or  training on several topics pertaining to the Post-9/11 GI Bill (see fig. 8). For  example, 72 percent of school certifying officials said it would be helpful  or very helpful to receive more information on the transferability of  entitlement to a spouse or dependents. School officials also indicated they  need more information on which fees are allowable under the Post-9/11 GI  Bill; when to submit enrollment certifications; and what steps to take  when they receive an incorrect payment.
Finally, an estimated 84 percent of school certifying officials have not  received training from any source on working with servicemembers and  veterans with disabilities. An estimated 59 percent of school officials said  it would be helpful or very helpful to receive information on the unique  needs of this population. VA officials told us the education program has  not developed training or guidance to help school officials better serve  those with disabilities. By comparison, Education is funding efforts to  provide some supports to staff working with servicemembers and veterans  with disabilities. Education recently announced grants to establish Centers  of Excellence for Veteran Student Success at 15 schools across the  country. The program is designed to improve support to veterans in  postsecondary education by coordinating services including personal or  mental health counseling and disabilities services. In particular, some  grantees plan to conduct training to help school staff understand the  challenges veterans with disabilities often face.
section_title: VA Lacks Comprehensive Information on the Effectiveness of Its Oversight of States and Schools
subsections: section_title: VA Monitors States’ Approval and Supervision of Schools, but Its Approach Has Limitations
paragraphs: VA monitors SAAs’ performance in approving and supervising schools  through a range of oversight activities, such as reviewing reports SAAs  submit on their activities (see table 4). Pursuant to their contracts with VA,  SAAs approve schools to receive VA education benefits and generally visit  them annually to ensure they continue to meet VA standards in areas such  as course quality, school financial stability, and student progress. To  oversee these activities, VA reviews reports that SAAs prepare after each  site visit, known as supervisory visits, as well as quarterly and annual  reports on their activities. On an annual basis, VA also convenes a Joint  Peer Review Group to assess each SAA’s performance, and, in fiscal year  2009, VA started conducting onsite visits at SAAs.
In general, VA’s oversight activities indicate that the majority of the 57  SAAs have fulfilled their responsibilities to VA. For example, all but 3 and  10 of the SAAs in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, respectively, received VA’s  highest rating of “satisfactory” as part of VA’s annual Joint Peer Review  Group. In addition, VA’s six site visits to SAAs in fiscal year 2010 generally  resulted in positive findings with relatively few discrepancies.  Furthermore, in recent years, most SAAs met VA’s standard to visit a  minimum of 80 percent of active schools.  However, 12 and 9 SAAs,  respectively, did not meet this standard in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
Despite these activities, we identified several limitations that may hamper  the effectiveness of SAAs’ oversight of schools. For example, while VA  requires SAAs to visit 80 percent of approved schools, it has not otherwise  identified, nor does it require SAAs to use, any risk-based factors to  develop their site visit schedules. A risk-based approach could help VA  better target SAAs’ oversight of schools to assure continued program  integrity. In our review of four selected states, we found that the SAAs  took different approaches to scheduling their visits. For example, one SAA  told us that they prioritize schools with higher numbers of VA  beneficiaries. Another SAA we spoke with considered multiple factors in  addition to the number of VA beneficiaries, and targeted, for example,  newly approved schools and for-profit schools. Finally, two of the four  SAAs we spoke with identified schools’ geographic locations as a key  factor in prioritizing schools for site visits, in order to minimize travel  costs.
In addition, VA lacks standards for how SAAs should conduct site visits at  schools, which raises questions about the validity of the findings and  makes it difficult to compare across schools and SAAs. In particular, VA  has not set minimum standards for the review of student files. In our four  selected states, we found variation in the percentage of student files that  SAAs reviewed. For example, in one state, we found that SAA officials  generally reviewed a non-random selection of 10 student files, regardless  of the number of VA education beneficiaries at the school. In comparison,  the number and percentage of student files for another SAA selected  varied from visit to visit, among the reports we reviewed. In addition, we  found that all four SAAs sometimes or always allow schools to select the  student files for review. This approach, however, undermines the  independence of the review because schools may not choose the most  complex student files for the SAAs’ review. Absent standards, VA lacks  assurance that the data collected from these file reviews by different SAAs  are valid, comparable, and useful for determining whether schools are in  compliance with federal requirements.
section_title: VA Suspended Its Required Audits of Schools in Fiscal Year 2010
paragraphs: Federal law requires VA to monitor and oversee schools through audits,  called compliance surveys. Each year, VA is required to conduct onsite  audits at one-third of each region’s approved schools, and in fiscal year  2009, VA conducted nearly 2,600 audits nationwide. One of VA’s four  regional processing offices handles school and program approvals for  foreign schools, but VA does not currently conduct audits of foreign  schools receiving its education benefits.
While the purpose of SAAs’ site visits is to ensure that schools remain in  compliance with federal requirements for VA education benefits, VA’s  audits focus more on the accuracy of benefit payments to schools and  students under all of its education benefit programs (see table 5 for a  comparison of SAA site visits and VA audits). For the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA  audits must include a review of multiple payment types made to both  schools (e.g., tuition and fee payments) and students (e.g., housing  allowances and books and supplies stipends). In order to determine the  accuracy of these payments, VA randomly selects student files to identify  discrepancies. For example, a payment error may occur when school  officials do not report changes in students’ credit hours to VA in a timely  manner.
Despite the federal requirement to conduct monitoring and oversight, in  fiscal year 2010, VA suspended its audit program in order to reassign  compliance staff to help process a backlog in Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. As  a result, VA did not complete several thousand audits during the critical  first full year of this new program. According to VA officials, VA’s  compliance staff did not fully resume their audits until fiscal year 2011. In  preparation to reinstate these audits, VA provided training to staff in June  2010 and conducted several preliminary audits following this training.  Each of the 18 preliminary school audits identified at least one error  among the files reviewed for students receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits,  and these errors varied in their scope and magnitude. For example:  In South Carolina, a school incorrectly made a refund of $1,123 to a  student who reduced his credit hours from six to three. The school should  have returned the funds to VA because the audit revealed the reduction in  credit hours occurred prior to the start of the school’s term.  In New Jersey, a school failed to notify VA that a student did not attend a  term because he returned to active duty, which resulted in an  overpayment to the school of $4,680.  In Arizona, a school certified tuition charges to VA without subtracting the  military and other discounts offered to students. In 9 of the 20 student files  reviewed, VA found overpayments to the school totaling nearly $20,000.
Although VA has resumed its audits of schools, there are indications that it  may not be able to complete all required audits in fiscal year 2011. VA  officials told us that these audits, compared to those conducted prior to  implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, are taking longer to complete. VA  officials indicated that, given their current resources, it would be  challenging for them to complete all required audits in fiscal year 2011.  Moreover, one VA regional processing office completed an analysis of the  time needed to review files for students receiving benefits under the Post- 9/11 GI Bill and found that it would require at least four additional full-time  staff, beyond those already assigned, to accommodate the additional  workload. Furthermore, even in the fiscal year prior to the Post-9/11 GI  Bill, VA failed to complete over 15 percent of the more than 3,000 audits  that were planned nationwide. In addition, we found that the percentage of  completed audits varied greatly among individual states and that VA  completed all of its planned audits in only 13 states (see fig. 9). Going  forward, VA plans to include audits that it did not conduct in fiscal year  2010 into its schedules for the next 2 years.
Finally, VA lacks a comprehensive and nationwide approach to ensure that  individual schools have been audited in a timely manner. VA has a  database, known as WEAMS, to track information about the dates in  which audits occurred, but not all of VA’s compliance staff enter  information into it, and officials said that VA does not require them to do  so. We found that nearly half of the 6,500 schools listed in the database  were missing a date for the most recent audit. In addition, based on our  review of reports, when available, for 46 randomly selected schools in four  states, we found that 6 schools in three states had not been audited by VA  since at least fiscal year 2006, even though these schools had active VA  education beneficiaries. In fact, in one state we found that the most  recent audit report for a public university with about 240 VA education  beneficiaries dated back to 1997.
section_title: VA Does Not Systematically Compile and Review Findings of School Audits
paragraphs: VA does not systematically consider the findings of its own or other  entities’ audits of schools when carrying out its oversight. For example, VA  prepares a report on each school audit, but does not compile the overall  findings for all audits, such as types of discrepancies and payment errors.  Likewise, while SAAs provide some information on the outcomes of their  visits in individual site visit reports, neither the SAAs nor VA summarize  them on a quarterly or annual basis. Such summary information could be  used to identify common errors among schools and evaluate trends over  time. As a result, VA lacks a comprehensive, national picture of schools’  performance in a given year or over time.
Furthermore, VA officials told us they do not consider the results of  monitoring or audits conducted by other entities, such as Education’s  Office of Federal Student Aid, in determining which schools they should  audit. To monitor schools receiving Title IV funds, the Office of Federal  Student Aid conducts program reviews each year at schools that it  identifies as high-risk, and requires schools to submit annual independent  compliance audits. Moreover, the Office of Federal Student Aid reviews  financial statements for all schools on an annual basis. It compiles the  results of its various oversight mechanisms in a data system used to track  its monitoring and enforcement activities at schools.  The Office of  Federal Student Aid has additional oversight measures for for-profit  schools and, according to its 5-year Strategic Plan, is exploring ways to  adapt its oversight to the unique challenges presented by for-profit and  distance-learning programs. VA officials told us, by comparison, that they  have not adopted different oversight practices for for-profit schools and  distance-learning courses. VA education program officials told us that they  support, in general, looking across its individual school audits and taking  other government entities’ audit findings into consideration to enhance  their oversight of schools.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Post-9/11 GI Bill enhanced education benefits for servicemembers,  veterans, and their dependents. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2011, VA  estimates it will triple the amount it pays in education benefits each year,  from $3.6 billion to nearly $10 billion. The majority of these funds will be  paid under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and expenditures are poised to grow  beyond 2011 due to the rising cost of higher education. Given this potential  for growth, it is important to ensure that VA has a process in place that  provides timely and accurate benefits to those who are truly eligible, while  also ensuring program integrity. With major statutory changes to the Post- 9/11 GI Bill taking effect in the early fall of 2011, VA has an opportunity to  reexamine and adjust its management approach to the program,  particularly in regard to its oversight and quality assurance activities.  These upcoming changes also require VA to effectively educate and inform  all of the players in the process—servicemembers, veterans, and state and  school officials.
Given that program stakeholders identified some areas where  servicemembers and veterans may need more information about VA  education benefits, it will be important for VA to have better measures of  the effectiveness of its outreach and support. These measures could  provide key information to help VA strengthen and inform future program  and resource decisions, improve critical program activities, and help verify  that resources are being used responsibly.
In addition, the Post-9/11 GI Bill has increased the workloads for school  certifying officials, who play a critical role in ensuring servicemembers  and veterans receive the right benefits in a timely manner. Establishing  timely and comprehensive channels for communicating policy information  and guidance on this new and complex program and raising awareness of  available training opportunities would help provide school officials with  the tools to effectively fulfill their roles in implementing VA education  benefits. Moreover, school certifying officials are a key point of contact on  campus for students receiving benefits, and some of these students may  have physical and cognitive disabilities. With increased awareness of how  to meet the needs of those with disabilities, school certifying officials may  be able to help ensure that these students have adequate support as they  transition into a school setting.
VA has also faced challenges in meeting the increased demand for Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits, and has had to make a number of trade-offs as it  focused on reducing the backlog of education claims, such as curtailing its  oversight of schools. As a result, VA did not take sufficient steps to ensure  program integrity and minimize waste, fraud, and abuse in its education  benefit programs. As VA renews its oversight of schools, our work has  found some early indications of continuing challenges, including difficulty  completing required audits of schools. As a result of upcoming legislative  changes to the role of State Approving Agencies, VA has an opportunity to  systematically review the federal-state oversight structure and resource  allocation. By undertaking such a review, VA may be able to achieve  greater efficiencies and to strike a balance between the need to process  claims in a timely manner while ensuring program integrity.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve VA’s outreach and support for eligible servicemembers and  veterans, communication with school officials, and oversight of its  education benefit programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans  Affairs take the following five actions:    Develop outcome-oriented performance measures for outreach to  servicemembers and veterans who are seeking VA education benefits. This  could include measures of VA’s success in reaching out to target  populations, including servicemembers and veterans with disabilities, and  in addressing areas where more information about education benefits may  be needed.
Establish performance measures for the quality of information provided by  VA’s toll-free hotline and for the timeliness and quality of its Right Now  Web service.
Provide more timely, accessible, and comprehensive education program  policy information. This could include developing and maintaining an  online policy manual for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and providing e-mail updates  to school certifying officials nationwide.
Increase efforts to make school certifying officials aware of available  training opportunities, including VA’s online training module, and consider  providing information for school certifying officials on working with  servicemembers and veterans with disabilities.
Undertake a systematic review of VA’s and SAAs’ oversight of schools,  focusing on opportunities to improve resource allocation, adopt risk-based  approaches, consider cost-effective ways to oversee foreign schools, and  evaluate the results of its oversight activities on a routine basis.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to VA for review and comment.  In its  comments, VA generally agreed with our conclusions, concurred with four  of our recommendations, and concurred in principle with the fifth  recommendation. Specifically, with regard to our recommendation to  establish outcome-oriented performance measures for outreach to  servicemembers and veterans seeking education benefits, VA reported that  it will develop performance measures for a new communications tool it is  creating to provide specialized information on VA benefits. In response to  our second recommendation to establish performance measures for the  quality of information provided by VA’s toll-free hotline and for the  timeliness and quality of its Right Now Web service, VA noted that it will  develop a national standard and policies for monitoring the quality and  timeliness of customer service for its education benefits. In order to  provide more timely, accessible, and comprehensive education program  policy information, VA stated that it will meet with school certifying  officials and other stakeholders to develop a plan for improving policy  information dissemination. Regarding raising awareness of training  opportunities for school certifying officials, VA reported that it will  examine how it is currently relaying information to these officials and look  for improvements and alternative mechanisms. Collectively, these efforts  should help improve VA’s outreach and support for eligible  servicemembers and veterans and enhance communication with school  officials.
VA concurred in principle with our fifth recommendation to undertake a  systematic review of VA’s and SAA’s oversight of schools. In its response,  VA noted that it recently acquired an independent assessment of the SAAs’  activities by a private contractor. In addition, VA mentioned that it  submitted recommended changes to SAAs’ activities as part of a legislative  package, provisions of which have been enacted as part of the Post-9/11  Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. These  changes, effective August 1, 2011, reduce SAAs’ responsibilities for school  approval by allowing VA to rely on accreditations already in place by  Education. As a result, VA indicated that it will have more flexibility in  utilizing SAAs to provide additional outreach, training, and oversight of  school officials. However, VA’s written comments did not respond to all of  the areas of a systematic review that we are encouraging VA to focus on,  including improving agency resource allocation, adopting a risk-based  approach to better target oversight activities, considering cost-effective  ways to oversee foreign schools, and routinely evaluating oversight  results. We believe that directing sustained management attention to these  additional areas, in conjunction with recent legislative changes, will help  ensure program integrity. VA’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Veterans Affairs, relevant congressional committees, and other  interested parties. In addition, this report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our report were to examine: (1) what is known about the  effectiveness of VA’s outreach to and support for individuals applying for  education benefits, particularly for servicemembers and veterans with  disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain  injury; (2) the role of school officials and the challenges they face in  fulfilling their responsibilities for VA’s education benefit programs; and (3)  how VA monitors and oversees states’ and schools’ implementation of its  education benefit programs. While our scope included all of VA’s active  education benefit programs, we had a particular focus on the Post-9/11 GI  Bill program, as it is the newest and most complex.
subsections: section_title: VA’s Outreach and Support for Eligible Servicemembers and Veterans
paragraphs: To address our first research objective, we reviewed relevant federal laws,  regulations, and agencywide plans and reports regarding outreach to and  support for eligible servicemembers and veterans and conducted  interviews with VA officials. Specifically, we reviewed statutory  requirements for outreach, which is defined as: “the act or process of  reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively provide information,  services, and benefits counseling to veterans, and to the spouses, children,  and parents of veterans who may be eligible to receive benefits under the  laws administered by the Secretary, to ensure that such individuals are  fully informed about, and receive assistance in applying for, such  benefits.” VA is also required to produce a biennial report to Congress and  a biennial outreach plan on its outreach efforts. We reviewed the most  recent outreach report, for 2010, and an outreach plan for fiscal year 2010- 2011, among other relevant documents. In addition, we interviewed VA  officials responsible for outreach and support within VA’s Education  Service; Education Call Center; Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment  Service; Benefits Assistance Service; and the Office of the Assistant  Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, including the National  Outreach Office.
In addition, we assessed VA’s current and planned performance objectives  and measures related to outreach and support by comparing them to  requirements in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and  key attributes for performance measures GAO has developed in prior  work. For example, one of the key attributes is “linkage,” which refers to  the extent to which the measure is aligned with division and agencywide  goals and mission and clearly communicated throughout the organization.  In addition, another key attribute is the extent to which each measure  covers a governmentwide priority, such as the quality, timeliness, and cost  of service. We assessed the reliability of VA’s data for its toll-free hotline  performance measures by reviewing existing information about the data  and the systems that produced them and interviewing knowledgeable  agency officials. We determined that the toll-free hotline performance  measures data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also gained the perspectives of program stakeholders on the  effectiveness of VA’s outreach and support, including servicemembers and  veterans receiving VA education benefits, veterans service organizations,  and school officials. Specifically, we conducted two discussion groups  with VA education beneficiaries enrolled in schools in Oklahoma and  Virginia. We selected these schools because they represented different  types of schools (2-year community college and 4-year public university,  respectively) with relatively high veteran populations. We worked with  school officials to identify students for these discussion groups, including  students with disabilities. We also interviewed representatives of three  national veterans service organizations. In addition, we interviewed (1)  school certifying officials at the two schools where we conducted  discussion groups of students and a predominately online university, (2)  representatives from a national group representing school certifying  officials, and (3) conducted a nationwide survey of school certifying  officials. See below for more information on this survey.
section_title: Roles and Challenges of School Certifying Officials
paragraphs: To address our second research objective, we reviewed relevant federal  laws, regulations, and agency documents and interviewed VA officials. We  also interviewed national groups representing State Approving Agencies  (SAA) and school certifying officials, as well as veterans service  organizations and students receiving VA education benefits, regarding the  roles of school certifying officials. We assessed VA’s coordination with  these officials using government internal control standards for  coordinating with external parties that have a significant impact on agency  goals. We also assessed VA’s survey of SAAs and school certifying offic on the effectiveness of VA’s communications and training initiatives for  the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The survey was fielded in August 2009 and again in  April 2010. We determined that the results of this survey were not  sufficiently reliable for our use, due to a low response rate and the lack a nonresponse analysis.
In addition, we selected a simple random sample of 273 facilities from VA public Web Enabled Approval Management System (WEAMS) database 6,403 active facilities, as of August 2010, and conducted a Web-based  survey of each facility’s school certifying official. “Facility” refers to a  school or one of its campuses or units, such as a medical school. In order  to be an “active facility,” a facility must have at least one educatio training program approved to receive VA education benefits. We matched  this public data with internal VA data from the same system to obtain the  facility code and names of the school certifying official assigned to the  facility. We assessed the reliability of WEAMS data by reviewing  documentation and interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data ,  and conducting electronic testing. We determined that the data from the  WEAMS database were not sufficiently reliable for our purposes, primar due to missing data on school certifying officials, and thus we conducted  additional work to overcome this limitation. Specifically, VA has not  required that all fields be populated, and, as a result, there are fields withmissing information, including the school certifying official’s name  and e- mail address fields. Twenty-seven percent of the facilities in our sample  had either an incorrect name listed or no name listed for the school  certifying official. To improve the accuracy and completeness of the d we conducted additional research, including performing I and making telephone calls to schools, to obtain complete contact  information for nearly all school certifying officials.
Although they are not required to do so, schools may request to have  multiple facilities listed separately in VA’s WEAMS database to account fo different campus locations or degree programs within the school. Each  facility listed separately must have a designated school certifying official  and the capacity to maintain students’ records. In some cases, a school  may have the same school certifying official for several or all of its  facilities. Our sample included three facilities within a school that had the  r  same school certifying official. In this case, we contacted the official to  determine whether the official preferred to complete all three  questionnaires or ask another school certifying official at the campus to  participate. The official responded to two of the questionnaires anddesignated another school certifying official to respond to the third  questionnaire.
After we drafted the questionnaire, we asked for comments from  knowledgeable school certifying officials, internal GAO subject matter  experts, and GAO survey methodologists. We conducted four pretests school certifying officials to help ensure that (1) the questions were cle and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the  questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, (4) the  information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the survey was  comprehensive and unbiased.
We chose the four pretest sites to include major subgroups: publi private institutions; community colleges and 4-year colleges and  universities; and locations across a wide geographic area. We conducted  one pretest in person and three over the phone. We made changes to the  content and format of the questions after each of the pretests, based on  the feedback we received.
We administered this Web-based questionnaire through a secure server.  Just prior to activating the final survey, we sent an e-mail announcement of the survey to an official at each of the 273 facilities on August 23, 2 In this e-mail, we asked each official if he or she was the correct  respondent and if not, we asked for a referral to the appropriate official.  Officials were notified that the questionnaire was available online a were given unique passwords and usernames on Augu follow-up e-mail messages on September 13 and 22, 2010, to those who  010.  st 27, 2010. We sent  had not yet responded. We contacted all remaining nonrespondents by telephone, starting September 20, 2010. The questionnaire was available  online until October 7, 2010.
In all, we received 195 completed surveys, for a response rate of 71  percent. We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis by comparing  respondents and nonrespondents on school type, which was available in  the WEAMS data. We determined that respondents and nonrespondents  did not differ significantly on this characteristic. Unless otherwise noted,  the margin of error associated with the confidence intervals of our survey  estimates is no more than plus or minus 7 percentage points at the 95  percent level of confidence.
Survey results based on probability samples are subject to sampling erro The sample we drew for our survey is only one of a large number of  samples we might have drawn. Because different samples could have  provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision  of our particular sample results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is  the interval that would contain the actual population values for 95 percent  of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent  confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include  the true values in the study population. r.
section_title: VA Oversight of States and Schools
paragraphs: Finally, to address our third research objective, we reviewed relevant  federal laws and regulations, as well as available reports and other  information that offered a national perspective on VA’s oversight of SAA and schools and interviewed VA officials. We also interviewed  representatives from national officials. Regarding oversight of SAAs, we obtained and reviewed the  contract between VA and its 57 SAAs for fiscal year 2010. In addition , we  reviewed the state-by-state results of VA’s Joint Peer Review Group  from  fiscal years 2009 and 2010, which annually evaluates SAA performance. W also obtained data from VA on the number of SAA supervisory visits to  schools, by state, in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Regarding oversight of  schools, we obtained data on the number of VA audits, known as  compliance surveys, conducted in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Finally, we  reviewed national data on the  organizations representing SAAs and school  se audits from VA’s WEAMS database.
In addition to national reports and data, we examined VA’s monitoring and  oversight activities in four states: California, Georgia, Kentucky, and  Massachusetts. We selected these states for a number of reasons,  including geographic location, as well as to obtain variation in: (1) the  number of schools within a state that have been approved to participate in  VA education benefit programs, (2) program expenditures, and (3) the  number of VA education beneficiaries. In addition, we made sure that one  of our four states (Kentucky) had a VA education liaison representative  based at a VA office located outside of the assigned state, as this is the  situation for 17 states. For each of the four states, we conducted  interviews with relevant VA and SAA officials and reviewed the most  recent oversight reports from VA and the SAA for randomly selected  schools. We used VA’s WEAMS data to randomly select 12 schools for  each of our four states, using their numeric facility codes: two public, two  private nonprofit, and two private for-profit schools in each of the  following two categories: 2-year community or junior colleges and college and universities offering 4-year degrees and graduate degrees. We found  that some of our selected schools did not have a current SAA supervisory  visit or VA compliance survey report on file because it was a newly  approved school and had not yet been scheduled for either one or both of  these types of site visits (see table 6). Overall, we reviewed 43 SAA  supervisory visit reports and 40 VA compliance survey reports.
section_title: Appendix II: Overview of Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010
paragraphs: On January 4, 2011, the President signed the Post-9/11 Veterans  Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, which revises the  Post-9/11 GI Bill program, established in 2008. Some major provisions o the new law are summarized below:  Eligibility of servicemembers and veterans:    Expands current definition of active duty service under the Post-9/ GI Bill to include National Guard activation for events like nationa emergencies. § 101(a)(1), 124 Stat. 4107 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §  3301(1)(C)). This provision is retroactive to August 1, 2009, but benefits  will not be paid until October 1, 2011. § 101(d)(1), 124 Stat. 4108.
Allows payment of benefits for the pursuit of non-degree granting  programs including apprenticeships or other on-the-job training, flight  training, or training by correspondence. § 105(b), 124 Stat. 4113-17 (to  be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 3313(g)). This provision becomes effective  October 1, 2011. § 105(d), 124 Stat. 4117.
Amount of benefit payments:    Replaces the current state-by-state system of limits on payments to  institutions of higher education with a two-tiered payment system.  Costs of in-state tuition and fees are covered for public schools. Tuition  and fee payments are capped at $17,500 a year for non-public or foreign  schools. § 102(a)(1), 124 Stat. 4108-09 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §  3313(c)(1)(A)). This provision becomes effective with respect to  distance learning on October 1, 2011, and otherwise on August 1, 2011.  § 102(c), 124 Stat. 4110.
Provides for payment of tuition and fees after the application of any  waiver of, or reduction in tuition and fees; and any scholarship or other  federal, state, institutional, or employer-based assistance. §  102(a)(1)(B) and 103(a)(2)(D), 124 Stat. 4110-11 (to be codified at 38  U.S.C. § 3313(c)(1)(A) and (e)(2)(A)). This provision becomes effective  August 1, 2011, with respect to veterans, but March 5, 2011, with  respect to active duty personnel. § 102(c)(1) and 103(c)(1), 124 Stat.  4112.
Provides the monthly housing allowance for (1) more than ha study in pursuit of a degree; (2) pursuing a program of education in  a  foreign country; and (3) more than half-time study solely by distance  learning. Limits the monthly housi to the rate of pursuit (based on number of course hours taken). For  example a half-time student will receive 50 pe housing allowance. § 102(b), 124 Stat. 4109-10 (to be codified at 38  U.S.C. § 1330(c)(1)(B)). Individuals pursuing distance learning  exclusively will receive half of the housing allowance to which they  would otherwise be entitled. This provision becomes effective with  respect to distance learning on October 1, 2011, and otherwise on  August 1, 2011. § 102(c), 124 Stat. 4110. ng stipend by prorating the payment  and supplies stipend for individuals on active duty  pursuing a program of education more than half-time. § 103(a)(2)(E),  124 Stat. 4111 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. 3313(e)(2)(B)). This prov becomes effective on October 1, 2011. 103(c)(2), 124 Stat. 4112.  rvicemembers and veterans with disabilities:    Enables individuals who are entitled to the Vocational Rehabilitation  and Employment program and 9/11 GI Bill housing allowance in place of the Vocational Rehabilitation  and Employment subsistence allowance. § 205(a), 124 Stat. 4126 (to  be  codified at 38 U.S.C. § 3108(b)(4)). This provision becomes effective  on  August 1, 2011. § 205(b), 124 Stat. 4126.   the Post-9/11 GI Bill to receive the Post- le of State Approving Agencies (SAA):  Grants the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to use SAAs for  such compliance and oversight purposes 203(b), 124 Stat. 4125 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 3673(d)). This  provision becomes effective on August 1, 2011. § 203(e), 124 Stat. 412  as it considers appropriate. §  6.
Allows certain education and training programs and courses with an  existing approval from or offered by certain federal, state or local  agencies—such as institutions accredited by agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education—to automatically receive approva for VA codified at 38 U.S.C. § 3672(b)(2)). This provision becomes effective  on August 2011. § 203(e), 124 Stat. 4126.  l  ’s education benefit programs. § 203(a), 124 Stat. 4124-25 (to be  Increases the amount of fees generally paid by the VA to participating educational institutions from $7 to $12 per student for providing  information concerning an individual’s enrollment in a program of  education. § 204(a), 124 Stat. 4126 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §  3684(c)). Requires institutions to use these fees solely for making suc certifications or for otherwise supporting programs for veterans. §204(b), 124 Stat. 4126 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 3684(c)). These  provisions become effective on October 1, 2011. § 204(c), 124 St at.  4126.
section_title: Appendix III: Comparison of VA Education Benefit Programs
paragraphs: FY 2010 (Estimated) ted)
Provides individuals  with active-duty  service after  September 10,  2001, tuition and  fees, housing  allowance, and  books and supplies  stipend. Benefit  amounts are based  on length of active- duty service, the  location of the  school attended,  and other factors.  For example, in the  2010-2011  academic year, a  veteran with 36  months of active- duty service taking  12 credits at a  school in Fairfax,  VA, can receive up  to $4,242 per term  for tuition, up to  $3,969 per term in  fees, $1,941 per  month for housing,  and up to $1,000  per year for books  and supplies.
FY 2010 (Estimated)
FY2011 (Estimated)
P benefit to four  categories of  individuals based service in active or  reserve compone of the Armed  Forces. The amount  is the same,  regardless of where  a school is located.  In fiscal year 2011,  the benefit is $1,426 per month for full- time study.
Provides a monthly  benefit payment for  Reservists,  including the  National Guard,  who agree to serve for 6 years. In fiscal year 2011, the  benefit is $337 per  month for full-time  study.
FY 2010 (Estimated)
FY2011 (Estimated)
Provides benefits to  Reservists with at  least 90 days of  consecutive active- duty service after  September 10,   year  2001. In fiscal 2011, the benefit is  $1,140.80 pe month for full-time  study, with at least 2 years of  consecutive active- duty service.
VA documents. ough VA has published data on the total expenditures for VA education benefits and the   2010, those data are not broken out by program. As such, we are  get estimates in the table above.
On January 4, 2011, the Pr Improvements Act of 2010 ( Assistance Act e the major provisions of the new esident signed the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance  Pub. L. No. 111-377), which revises the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational  nacted in 2008 (known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill). See appendix II for a summary of   law.
The be adjusted annually  National Center for Educ y benefit amounts for VA education benefits other than the Post-9/11 GI Bill will  based on the annual average cost of undergraduate tuition as determined by the  ation Statistics (NCES).
Est h. ts for MGIB-AD includes costs for the Post-Korean Conflict and Vietnam Era GI Bill  (c  34).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following staff members made  important contributions to this report: Brett Fallavollita, Assistant  Director; Rachael C. Valliere, Analyst in Charge; Dana Hopings; Heddi  Nieuwsma; and Max Yurkofsky. Also, Greg Wilmoth, Stu Kaufman, Carl  Barden, and Cathy Hurley provided guidance on the study’s design and  data analysis; Craig Winslow provided legal advice; and James Bennett  created the report graphics. In addition, Susannah Compton advised the  team on writing the report; and Joel Green, James Lloyd, Wayne Sylvia,  Eve Weisberg, and Amber Yancey-Carroll verified our findings.