VA Education Benefits: Actions Taken, but Outreach and Oversight Could Be Improved
Released: 2011-03-30T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits for Servicemembers and Veterans with Disabilities

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.

Implementation of VA Education Benefit Programs by VA, States, and Schools

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.

VA Maintains Outreach and Support Activities but Does Not Assess Their Effectiveness

VA Has Various Activities to Reach Out to and Support Servicemembers and Veterans

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.

Program Stakeholders Identified Some Limitations in VA’s Outreach and Support

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.

VA Targets Outreach and Support for Education Benefits to All Eligible Individuals, Not Necessarily to Those with Disabilities

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.

VA Has Few Efforts to Measure the Effectiveness of Outreach and Support Activities

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.

School Certifying Officials’ Roles Have Become More Complex and Challenging

The Complexity of School Officials’ Roles Has Increased Along with Their Workload

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.

School Certifying Officials Were Generally Satisfied, but Reported a Lack of Comprehensive Policy Guidance, among Other Challenges

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.

VA Lacks Comprehensive Information on the Effectiveness of Its Oversight of States and Schools

VA Monitors States’ Approval and Supervision of Schools, but Its Approach Has Limitations

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.

VA Suspended Its Required Audits of Schools in Fiscal Year 2010

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.

VA Does Not Systematically Compile and Review Findings of School Audits

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

VA’s Outreach and Support for Eligible Servicemembers and Veterans

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.

Roles and Challenges of School Certifying Officials

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.

VA Oversight of States and Schools

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.

Appendix II: Overview of Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010

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.

Appendix III: Comparison of VA Education Benefit Programs

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).

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.