Veterans' Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor Department Programs
Released: 1997-10-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

VETS’ mission is to help veterans, reservists, and National Guard members obtain employment and protect their employment rights and benefits. The key elements of VETS’ mission include enforcement of veterans’ preference and reemployment rights, employment and training assistance, public information services, interagency liaison, and training for those assisting veterans. VETS provides states with grants for DVOP and LVER staff to provide veterans and eligible persons employment and training opportunities, with priority given to the needs of disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era, through the states’ employment service systems established under the Wagner-Peyser Act. As part of the DVOP and LVER grant agreements, states must provide or ensure veterans’ priority and other special considerations in the provision of services to veterans at every point where the public employment and training delivery system services are available. The grant agreements provide the following order of priority for serving veterans: first, special disabled veterans; then, Vietnam-era veterans; followed by disabled veterans other than special disabled veterans; last, all other veterans and eligible persons.

VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that includes representation in each of Labor’s 10 regions and in each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training administers VETS’ activities through regional administrators and a VETS director in each state. These federally paid VETS staff are the link between VETS and the states’ employment service system and ensure that states carry out their obligations to provide service to veterans under various federally funded programs, including the services provided under the DVOP and LVER grants.

LVER staff were first authorized under the original G.I. Bill, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. DVOP specialists were initially established by executive order in 1977 and later authorized by the Veterans’ Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980. Although DVOP and LVER staff are employees of their states’ employment service systems, their positions are funded by grants to the states administered by VETS, and they are to serve veterans exclusively. Furthermore, the duties of DVOP and LVER staff are specified by federal law and include outreach to locate veterans, job development for veterans, networking in the community for employment and training programs, providing labor exchange services to veterans, making referrals to support services, and case management.

The state VETS directors monitor local employment offices to determine whether DVOP and LVER staff are carrying out these duties. For example, they examine the performance of assigned DVOP and LVER staff in such areas as job development assistance, employer visits, and case management. DVOP and LVER staff have many similar job duties—such as networking with employers, veterans’ organizations, federal agencies, and community-based organizations. The primary focus for DVOP specialists is on locating veterans with disabilities and other barriers to employment and assisting them in removing barriers and finding jobs and job training opportunities. LVER staff, on the other hand, are the local employment offices’ primary resource for policies and procedures regarding priority service to veterans and are responsible for reporting on compliance with laws and regulations concerning veterans’ issues.

States’ employment service systems provide priority service for veterans in a variety of ways. The DVOP and LVER grant agreements include assurances by states that LVER staff and DVOP specialists serve eligible veterans exclusively. Under federal law, all state employment service staff must give priority to veterans over nonveterans for services; the assignment of DVOP or LVER staff does not relieve other local employment office staff of their requirement to provide priority service to veterans. To implement this priority service, for example, states may place a 24-hour “hold” on a new “job order” received from an employer until veterans can be identified and contacted. Generally, states first search their electronic job file for qualified veteran applicants and then contact the veterans regarding the employment opportunity.

National Funding Trend for DVOP and LVER Grants

Over a 10-year period, appropriations for VETS, adjusted for inflation, have declined 11 percent. (See fig. 1.) In comparison, the inflation-adjusted Wagner-Peyser appropriations for states’ employment service systems declined by 26 percent over the same 10-year period.

During fiscal years 1990 through 1997, the amount appropriated for DVOP and LVER grants did not fund the number of statutorily authorized DVOP or LVER positions. (See figs. 2 and 3, and see app. II for actual numbers of DVOP and LVER positions authorized and funded.) For example, in fiscal year 1997, the number of DVOP specialist positions funded (1,568) was 78 percent of the statutory number of positions (2,008), and the number of LVER staff positions funded (1,340) was 84 percent of the statutory number of positions (1,600). Furthermore, funding for the DVOP grant, adjusted for inflation, declined by 19 percent over the past 10 years. The LVER funding trend was more variable, with increases and decreases over the same time period, but the inflation-adjusted appropriation showed a decline of about 8 percent between 1987 and 1996.

Process Used to Allocate DVOP and LVER Funds to States

States receive DVOP and LVER funding from VETS through multiyear grants, generally for a period of 2 to 5 years. Before the beginning of each grant period, VETS invites states to apply for DVOP and LVER funding. At that time, VETS publishes the number of positions each state should receive according to the statutory funding level for both DVOP and LVER grants. Based on this information, states submit requests for funding on a worksheet that documents, for each grant, the number of positions, the cost of salaries and benefits, the state’s cost per position for DVOP and LVER staff, and the total funds the state is requesting. As part of the allocation request, states are required to calculate the proportion of the DVOP and LVER grants used for administrative and support expenses. Administrative and support expenses associated with the DVOP and LVER grants differ across the states. These expenses include costs such as travel, supplies, a portion of central office personnel, communications, rent, and utilities. When appropriations for the DVOP and LVER grants do not support the number of statutorily authorized positions, each state’s share of the appropriation is calculated on the basis of a proportionate reduction.

Because DVOP and LVER grants are multiyear grants, the grant funds are adjusted annually. After the first year of a grant period, states submit a modification or revised request for funds that includes a new worksheet reflecting updated costs for each year of the grant cycle. In fiscal year 1995, for example, states requested funding according to the statutory funding levels. However, in fiscal year 1996, VETS directed states to submit grant modifications based on a 5-percent reduction from their initial 1995 grant award. In fiscal year 1997, VETS directed states to submit proposed modifications based on VETS’ estimated amount for each grant by state.

After VETS notifies states of their actual grant allocations, the states must submit state fiscal operating plans that show planned quarterly DVOP and LVER spending plans. This becomes an important document as the states proceed through the grant year because VETS uses these documents to adjust each state’s grant amount, if necessary, during the year. Each quarter, VETS reviews state obligations and expenditures against state fiscal operating plans. VETS has the authority to reallocate up to 95 percent of unobligated DVOP and LVER funds at the end of each quarter from states with excess funds to states that request additional funding through a grant modification.

DVOP State Allocations

VETS uses the formula specified in the law—one DVOP specialist for each 6,900 veterans residing in the state who are either veterans of the Vietnam era, veterans who first entered active duty as a member of the armed forces after May 7, 1975, or disabled veterans—together with cost information from each state to determine the amount of funding for each state. First, VETS determines (1) the number of veterans residing in a state who are Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans and (2) the number of disabled veterans residing in a state—those receiving either VA compensation or receiving military disability compensation through a medical discharge or retirement. These two factors are added—which may result in some double counting—and the sum is divided by 6,900 to determine the number of DVOP specialists for the state. The state’s funding allocation is computed by multiplying the number of DVOP specialists by the state’s cost per position. This allocation is then adjusted proportionately on the basis of the actual funds appropriated—which has generally supported fewer positions than the number of positions determined by statute. For example, the state with the largest DVOP population, California, should have had 256 DVOP specialists by statute in fiscal year 1997 but projected that funding would support 180 positions, or 30 percent fewer. (See app. III for an example of the formula calculation and the underlying data used to calculate the number of statutory DVOP positions for fiscal year 1997.)

The cost per DVOP position varies from state to state. In fiscal year 1997, the average projected cost per DVOP position was $51,431 but ranged from $24,222 to $67,333. Of the 50 states, those with the highest costs per DVOP position (over $65,000) included Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin; those with the lowest costs per DVOP position were Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The variation in cost across the states results from the differences in each state’s salary and administrative and support expenses. For example, for fiscal year 1997, the average administrative and support costs for the DVOP grant were 25.3 percent of the grant but were as high as about 35 percent in Wisconsin and as low as 18 percent in Alaska and Delaware (see figs. 4 and 5). (See app. IV for—by state, for fiscal year 1997—the DVOP grant award, the number of projected DVOP positions, cost per DVOP position, and percentage of administrative and support costs.)

DVOP positions are not distributed in proportion to the civilian labor force because the relevant veteran population varies across the states. For example, although nationally the DVOP population was 10.3 percent of the total civilian labor force, some states had a DVOP population that was 12 percent or more of their civilian labor force—including Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. States with a lower percentage—less than 9 percent—included Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin. (These percentages, by state, are included in app. III.)

LVER State Allocations

Beginning with fiscal year 1988, the law specifies that LVER grant funds available to states should be sufficient to support the appointment of 1,600 full-time LVER staff and the states’ administrative expenses associated with the appointment of those staff. It also sets forth a two-part LVER formula for allocating the LVER staff positions among the states. The first part of the formula provides that each state receive the number of LVER positions it had on board as of January 1, 1987, plus 1 additional position, bringing the national total to 1,439. The second part of the formula dictates how the remaining 161 positions will be allocated across the states by taking an average of three factors relating to the number of veterans in a state, the number of veterans registered for employment assistance, and the number of full-service local employment service offices. Like the DVOP funding, VETS adjusts state allocations proportionately according to actual appropriations. For example, the state with the most LVER positions by statute—California, with 121 positions—projected that it could fund 100.5 LVER positions with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation. (See app. V for an example of the LVER formula calculation and the underlying data used to calculate the number of LVER formula positions for fiscal year 1997.)

The cost per LVER position varies across the states. The projected fiscal year 1997 cost per LVER position averaged $54,729 and ranged from $25,625 to $77,235. Of the 50 states, those with the highest cost (above $71,000) per LVER position included Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin; those states with the lowest cost per LVER position were Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The variation in cost across the states results from the differences in each state’s salary and administrative and support costs. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the average administrative and support costs for LVER grants was 24.4 percent of the total grant and ranged from about 13 percent in Louisiana to about 34 percent in Wisconsin. (See figs. 6 and 7.) (See app. VI for—by state, for fiscal year 1997—the LVER grant award, the number of projected positions, cost per position, and percentage of administrative and support costs.)

Performance Measurements for DVOP and LVER Staffing Grants

Performance standards for the DVOP and LVER grants are measured in terms of providing a higher level of service and achieving better results for veterans than is achieved by a state’s employment service system for its nonveteran applicants. In recent testimony, we criticized VETS’ current performance standards because they focus more on process than on results and noted that performance is evaluated only in relative, not absolute, terms. VETS officials are aware of weaknesses in the current performance measurement system and are currently assessing better ways to measure services provided to veterans and to evaluate the impact of those services. VETS would like to put greater emphasis on results, but VETS is uncertain whether it will develop measures based on absolute levels of service to veterans. Several states are conducting pilot programs to measure alternative ways of measuring performance; however, states are being held accountable to the current performance standards during the pilot period.

VETS Performance Measures

As required by federal law, VETS has established performance standards to determine state compliance with requirements to provide employment services to veterans, evaluating states in five service categories: (1) veterans placed in or obtaining employment, (2) Vietnam-era veterans and special disabled veterans placed in jobs on the Federal Contractor Job Listing, (3) veterans counseled, (4) veterans placed in training, and (5) veterans who received some reportable service. To ensure priority service to veterans, VETS expects veterans to be served at a rate exceeding the service to nonveterans. Veterans and eligible persons should be served at a rate 15 percent higher than nonveterans, Vietnam-era veterans at a rate 20 percent higher, and disabled veterans at a rate 25 percent higher. Placement rates for special disabled veterans in jobs listed by federal contractors should also be 25 percent higher than the rate for nonveterans. Thus, if a state’s placement rate for nonveterans was 8.55 percent, the placement rate for veterans should be 9.83, or 15 percent higher than the nonveteran placement rate.

For program year 1995, the national placement rate for nonveterans was 20.4 percent and so the veterans’ placement standard was 23.5 percent. The actual placement rate for veterans was 26.1 percent, which exceeded the standard. (See table 1.) The only area where a substantial number of states failed to meet the standards was in “reportable services.” In over half of these cases, the state’s standard was at 100 percent or more. Iowa, for instance, categorizes formulating employment development plans—which also involves counseling and interviewing—as a reportable service; because this is done for every employment service client, it is impossible for veterans to be served at a higher rate than nonveterans. (See app. VII for program year 1995 performance, by state, for all five service categories.)

States must meet the minimum goals but can negotiate higher goals with the VETS state director. For program year 1995, 24 states negotiated higher goals for one or more of the veteran groups. For example, New York increased each goal by 1 percentage point simply because the state wanted to do a bit better than the floor levels established by VETS. Idaho increased all of its performance standard goals by 5 percentage points and met its goals. Wisconsin had increased all goals but failed to meet several performance standards during program year 1995; for program year 1996, Wisconsin renegotiated its goals to the minimum required level.

The current system for measuring service to veterans sets the base standard to the number of nonveteran applicants served. Consequently, a state that has a poor level of service to nonveterans would be held to a lower standard for service to veterans than a state with a better overall performance. For example, in one state with a low placement rate for nonveteran applicants (5.62 percent) for program year 1995, the state was required to place 363 veteran applicants, or 6.47 percent of its total veteran applicants. In this instance, the state met its performance standard by placing 416 of its veteran applicants. On the other hand, a state with a higher placement rate for nonveterans did not meet its performance standard even though it placed nearly 22 percent of its veteran applicants. (See fig. 8.)

VETS officials monitor state compliance with the performance standards and are required to report annually to the Congress on the states’ success in meeting the performance standards. If a state does not meet a performance standard, VETS officials must decide either to accept the state’s “good cause” explanation or to require a corrective action plan. During program year 1995, VETS determined that all but 15 states met their performance standards. Failure to meet one or more of the quantitative performance standards, however, does not itself constitute failure to provide priority services to veterans. State and regional VETS officials identify other factors that may affect the delivery of quality services before making any noncompliance determinations. For example, a state’s placement rate for nonveteran applicants may be artificially inflated. In particular, one state has numerous migrant seasonal farmworkers registered at local employment service offices, thereby establishing an artificially high baseline against which placement rates for veterans are measured.

VETS Plans to Revise Performance Measures

VETS has directed its field staff and state partners to provide input regarding the development, piloting, and evaluation of new performance measurement systems. VETS officials have characterized the present measurement system as activity- and volume-driven, providing states little incentive to focus services on those veterans who are marginally job ready or are most in need of intensive employability development services. According to the Acting Assistant Secretary for VETS, absolute levels of performance would be desirable, but it would be difficult to establish absolute standards that could take into account variances in state situations such as economic factors and geographic size. However, VETS is currently testing new ways of measuring performance. The states that are piloting new initiatives are Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah. The proposed implementation plans for each pilot must include intended start and ending dates, a full 12 months of data, and pilot evaluation activity completed by July 31, 1998. During the pilot testing period, states are still to be evaluated using the current performance standards and goals.

DVOP and LVER Position Requirements

Federal eligibility requirements for appointing LVER and DVOP staff are based on veteran status. The law requires that each DVOP specialist be a veteran, and preference is given to disabled Vietnam-era veterans. If a qualified disabled Vietnam-era veteran is not available, preference is given to other disabled veterans. If no qualified disabled veteran is available, the appointment may be given to an otherwise qualified veteran. LVER staff appointed on or after July 1, 1988, must be veterans. Preference for LVER staff appointments is first accorded to veterans with service-connected disabilities; then, if no such disabled veteran is available, to qualified eligible veterans; and, if no such eligible veteran is available, then to qualified eligible nonveterans.

Because DVOP and LVER staff are state employees, states are responsible for hiring staff, but the state VETS director is responsible for ensuring that the selected DVOP and LVER staff meet the federal eligibility requirements. When filling DVOP and LVER staff positions, states generally make a priority list from qualified and available candidates and, if candidates cannot be found that fit the federal eligibility requirements, the state would present the list to the state VETS director for concurrence. For example, one state VETS director said that he has never approved a nondisabled veteran for a DVOP specialist position, but he has approved a non-Vietnam-era veteran for one.

In addition to federal eligibility requirements regarding veteran status, DVOP and LVER staff are hired in accordance with each state’s civil service merit system, which may include other position requirements and vary from state to state. Most states have educational requirements for both DVOP and LVER positions, usually requiring a Bachelor’s degree. (See fig. 9.) Over half the states (57 percent) required a 4-year college degree for LVER staff, and 44 percent of the states required a 4-year college degree for DVOP specialists; however, 15 states had no educational requirements for DVOP specialists, and 12 states had no educational requirements for LVER staff.

The majority of states required prior work experience, but generally states allowed the substitution of job experience for educational requirements or vice versa. For example, in New Mexico, the minimum qualification is a high school or general equivalency diploma (GED) plus any combination of college education and experience in social welfare, employment, manpower programs, or veterans programs, equivalent to 4 years. Delaware has no specific educational or experience requirements, but the job announcement requires that the applicants know the principles of interviewing and be able to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. A written examination is also given, and interviews are granted on the basis of applicants’ scores. Minnesota has no educational or experience requirements—nor has it any testing requirements.

The LVER position generally had slightly higher requirements. For example, in Hawaii, a Bachelor’s degree was required for both the DVOP and LVER staff positions, but the DVOP specialist position required 1-1/2 years’ experience (in employment services, personnel administration, or related fields and/or professional experience in social work or related fields), while the LVER staff position required 3-1/2 years’ experience. In Illinois, the DVOP specialist needed 1 year of college or equivalent experience, and the LVER staff needed 2 years of college or equivalent experience. And in South Carolina, there were no educational or prior work experience requirements for the DVOP specialists; however, minimum requirements for LVER staff were a Bachelor’s degree and 2 years’ experience in employment security program areas, 1 year of which must have been in an administrative capacity; or a high school diploma and 6 years in employment security program areas, 1 year of which must have been in a supervisory or administrative capacity.

DVOP and LVER staff salaries varied from state to state. For example, at the time we obtained our information, of the 50 states, the starting salary for DVOP specialists ranged from $15,768 in Louisiana to $30,438 in Colorado, with the average starting salary at $21,846. The full performance salary for DVOP specialists ranged from $23,650 in South Dakota to $46,128 in Colorado, with the average at $32,308. The starting salary for LVER staff ranged from $15,768 in Louisiana to $32,544 in Hawaii, with the average starting salary at $23,001. The full-performance salary of LVER staff ranged from $23,650 in South Dakota to $56,061 in Colorado, with an average of $34,739. (See fig. 10, and see app. VIII for starting and full-performance DVOP and LVER staff salaries by state.)

DVOP and LVER Staff Characteristics

As federal law prescribes, virtually all DVOP specialists, at the time of our survey, were disabled, Vietnam-era veterans, but a slightly lower percentage of LVER staff were disabled, Vietnam-era veterans. All DVOP specialists were veterans and nearly all—95 percent—were disabled veterans. Ninety-three percent of DVOP specialists were Vietnam-era veterans. Nearly all LVER staff were veterans (94 percent), and 62 percent were disabled veterans. Although federal law does not prescribe that LVER staff be Vietnam-era veterans, 84 percent of all LVER staff were. DVOP and LVER staff had primarily served in the military for either 4 years or less, or 20 years or more. (See fig. 11.) Many DVOP and LVER staff (33 and 40 percent, respectively) had separated or retired from active military service during the 1970s. (See fig. 12.)

Half of all DVOP specialists had a 4-year college degree, and a slightly higher percentage of all LVER staff (56 percent) had a 4-year degree. (See fig. 13.) Many of these DVOP and LVER staff had some graduate school training, and nearly 10 percent of both DVOP and LVER staff had obtained Master’s degrees.

Over half of the DVOP specialists and 46 percent of LVER staff reported that they had been in their positions for less than 5 years. A quarter of all DVOP specialists and about a third of all LVER staff had been in their positions more than 5 but less than 10 years. Roughly similar proportions of DVOP specialists (12 percent) and LVER staff (10 percent) had been in their positions over 15 years.

Generally, DVOP and LVER staff were white, male, and over 45. For DVOP specialists, 9 percent reported that they were of Spanish or Hispanic descent, 20 percent were African American, and 71 percent were white. For LVER staff, 7 percent reported that they were of Spanish or Hispanic descent, 13 percent were African American, and 81 percent were white. Additionally, the vast majority of DVOP specialists (94 percent) and LVER staff (92 percent) were male. Few DVOP and LVER staff were under the age of 40, and about a third of DVOP and LVER staff were aged 46 to 50. (See fig. 14.)

DVOP and LVER Staff Duties and Activities

Although the authorizing legislation lists many job duties for DVOP and LVER staff serving veterans, DVOP and LVER staff reported spending the majority of their time on two duties. Most clients served by DVOP and LVER staff need minimal assistance, but DVOP and LVER staff spend relatively more time with clients needing extensive services like case management. DVOP and LVER staff work with employers, veterans’ organizations, federal agencies, and community-based organizations to match veterans with jobs and training opportunities. For example, as a part of networking efforts with other veterans’ employment services, DVOP and LVER staff work with VR&C clients to find employment opportunities, and some participate in TAP activities for separating service members.

Few Activities Predominate

According to our survey, the two duties that both DVOP and LVER staff spent the most time on were (1) job search and referral and (2) intake and assessment. (See table 2.)

Representative of their different job duties, DVOP specialists’ third most time-consuming activity was outreach activities to locate and assist veterans, while LVER staff reported that functionally supervising the provision of veterans’ services within their local employment service office was the third most time-consuming activity. Even though job search and referral was reported by both DVOP and LVER staff as the activity on which they spent the most time, they reported that they would like to have more time for this activity. The DVOP and LVER staff also reported that they needed more time for employer outreach and individual case management. Additionally, DVOP and LVER staff reported spending about 83 percent of their time on their top three activities.

In response to our survey, more than half of DVOP and LVER staff provided unsolicited comments. Several comments related to needing more time to perform certain duties. For example, one respondent commented that he is often “spread too thinly” to do an adequate job in case management and must concentrate on serving the walk-in traffic because the local employment office staff has dwindled as a result of budget reductions. Another respondent offered a similar comment regarding time for employer outreach; he noted that, because of office downsizing, he was unable to visit employers and had to rely on the telephone to perform outreach. Another respondent stated that it is a struggle to get the necessary time for outreach activities because the local office manager wants the staff in the office attending to veterans. Additionally, although the law specifies that DVOP specialists provide assistance to veterans exclusively and VETS’ policy requires that LVER staff (except for half-time LVER staff) serve veterans exclusively, DVOP and LVER staff—about 8 percent of the sampled respondents—noted that they were required to provide employment services to nonveterans. (See app. IX for a content analysis of a sample of DVOP and LVER survey comments.)

Client Characteristics

DVOP and LVER staff classified the proportion of their clients into three levels of need. Level I clients were defined as job ready and able to serve themselves; level II clients were those that needed minimal information and direction such as assistance with job search, resume preparation, or interview skills; and level III clients had barriers to employment, needing extensive services like case management. DVOP and LVER staff mainly served level II clients (44 and 47 percent, respectively), but DVOP specialists served more level III clients (28 percent) than did LVER staff (21 percent). However, DVOP and LVER staff spent relatively more time with level III clients (40 and 34 percent, respectively)—those needing more extensive assistance—than with level I clients (20 and 21 percent, respectively). (See figs. 15 and 16.)

Many DVOP and LVER Staff Serve VR&C Clients; Fewer Work With TAP

About 70 percent of DVOP specialists and 60 percent of LVER staff serve VR&C clients; however, individual DVOP and LVER staff reported serving relatively few VR&C clients in the 6-month period covered by our survey. Sixty percent of DVOP specialists served seven or fewer VR&C clients during this period, and 70 percent of LVER staff served seven or fewer VR&C clients. State VETS directors explained that since a memorandum of understanding was signed August 1, 1995, between VETS and VR&C, networking efforts between DVOP and LVER staff and VR&C staff have generally improved. They said a point of contact is usually established within the state’s employment service office and this individual obtains information from VR&C regarding clients who are job ready; the point of contact then refers the client to the appropriate DVOP or LVER staff in the area where the client would like to work. One respondent said that, since the latest agreement between VETS and VR&C, there is better cooperation between VR&C staff and the DVOP and LVER staff; this allows all parties to do the work for which they are most qualified—the VR&C staff are specialists in counseling and providing training, and the DVOP and LVER staff have the contacts with local employers and other advocates to help veterans find gainful employment. At the time of our survey, four states had 90 percent or more of their staff providing some assistance to VR&C clients, while six states had less than half their staff providing some assistance to VR&C clients. (See fig. 17.)

Less than a quarter of both DVOP and LVER staff performed TAP duties. Seventy percent of those DVOP specialists and 85 percent of those LVER staff spent up to 6 days per month on TAP activities. TAP operates as a partnership between the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, and its activities generally involve conducting workshops to help military personnel and their spouses make decisions as they move from military service to civilian life and to help transfer military experience into a civilian job or career. Workshops include instruction in conducting successful job searches, career decision-making, current occupational and labor market conditions, and resumé and cover letter preparation. A respondent to our survey noted that TAP is vital for military members separating from the service and there is a high success rate of veterans finding jobs that have had TAP classes. Another respondent noted that both programs—VR&C and TAP—are invaluable and result in putting informed, productive workers into the labor pool or directly into jobs with employers. Because TAP activities are related to the presence of military bases in a state, nine states at the time of our survey had relatively few staff engaged in TAP activities, while nine states had 30 percent or more of their DVOP and LVER staff engaged in some TAP activities. (See fig. 18.)

Agency Comments

In commenting on our draft report, the Assistant Secretary-designate said that Labor had no disagreement with the information it contained. He suggested three minor wording changes to help clarify information, and we incorporated these changes, as appropriate, in the report. Furthermore, in reacting to comments on our questionnaire from DVOP and LVER staff, Labor said that VETS does not allow DVOP and LVER staff to provide services to nonveterans and will recapture funds from states if office reviews uncover evidence of this activity. Labor also commented that our report showed a number of DVOP and LVER staff responding that their computer capability was insufficient, and VETS said that it will continue to encourage states to address this issue. Finally, Labor noted that comments indicated improved coordination between DVOP and LVER staff and the VR&C program. The Department’s comments are printed in appendix XI.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix XII.

Scope and Methodology

In designing our study, we obtained legislation, regulations, and Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) directives regarding the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) grants to states. We met with VETS officials responsible for administering the grants, who provided us documentation regarding the DVOP and LVER appropriations, program operating procedures, program management reports, and information about how funds are allocated to states. Because VETS does not maintain centralized, historical files on DVOP and LVER grants, officials could not provide us reports indicating the number of DVOP and LVER positions that were actually funded for past fiscal years nor could they provide historical documents on the number of statutorily required positions by state. From their budget documents, VETS officials provided the number of statutorily required positions for fiscal years 1990 through 1997 at the time VETS’ budget was submitted. VETS also provided the total number of positions states reported that they could support with the DVOP and LVER grant appropriations rather than the actual number of positions funded.

To understand how DVOP and LVER grants are implemented at the state level, we visited two states, Colorado and Pennsylvania, interviewing state and regional VETS directors as well as state employment service system officials, including DVOP and LVER staff. We also telephoned the VETS directors in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (collectively referred to in this report as “the states”) to obtain state-specific information about the operation of the DVOP and LVER grants in all states. We conducted these telephone interviews during December 1996 and January 1997. We obtained information such as the salaries for DVOP and LVER staff, state qualification requirements for DVOP and LVER staff, state compliance with VETS performance standards, and state implementation of the memorandum of understanding between VETS and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program (VR&C).

To obtain information about the characteristics of DVOP and LVER staff and how they spend their time, we surveyed all DVOP and LVER staff. Because DVOP and LVER staff are state employees, VETS could not tell us the number of staff at a particular time; consequently, there was no database containing the names and addresses of all DVOP and LVER staff. We obtained a listing of DVOP and LVER staff who had attended the National Veterans’ Training Institute and verified and updated the listing with each state VETS director as well as the state administrators of each state’s employment service system. Surveys were sent to a total of 2,862 DVOP and LVER staff—those on board as of March 1997—almost evenly divided between DVOP specialists and LVER staff. By May 30, 1997, nearly 96 percent of the DVOP and LVER staff had responded to the survey.

More than half of the survey respondents provided additional comments at the end of the survey document, and we analyzed the content of a sample of these comments. An initial random pretest of 5 percent (76) was selected and coded independently by two analysts to reduce coder bias and ambiguity in making judgments in determining the categories. For the content analysis, a total of 25 percent (378) of the 1,513 surveys with comments were randomly selected and coded into 14 categories. Examples of typical comments and a quantitative content analysis of the comments are in appendix IX.

We conducted our work between June 1996 and July 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

DVOP and LVER Authorized and Funded Positions, Fiscal Years 1990-97

Statutory Formula for DVOP Specialist Positions and Statutory Positions for Fiscal Year 1997

To determine the number of DVOP specialists authorized for each state, a sum is taken of (1) the number of veterans residing in a state who are Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans and (2) the state’s number of disabled veterans—those veterans residing in a state who are receiving either Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation or military disability compensation through either a medical discharge or retirement. These disabled veterans could also be included in the number of Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans. This sum represents the “DVOP population” and is divided by 6,900 to determine the number of DVOP specialists authorized per state by U.S.C. title 38. For example, for fiscal year 1997, Connecticut had 136,000 Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans and 23,368 disabled veterans, who, added together, represent a DVOP population of 159,368. This number, when divided by 6,900, gives Connecticut 23 DVOP specialist positions according to the title 38 formula.

VETS publishes the number of states’ statutory positions for the first year of a multiyear grant period. While VETS recalculates the formula positions for each remaining year within the grant period for its own budget estimating purposes, it does not publish these statutory funding levels each year. Because VETS could not provide the calculations used for the fiscal year 1995 grants, the information in table III.1 shows the most recent data provided by VETS for the number of authorized positions in fiscal year 1997. At the time VETS submitted its fiscal year 1997 congressional budget request, the number of statutory positions was 2,008. For this table, the subsequent number of statutory positions is 2,044. However, VETS officials noted that this revised number has not been used in any staffing decisions by VETS because the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was well below the amount that could have supported the number of statutory positions.

DVOP population vs. labor force (%) (continued)

DVOP population vs. labor force (%)

N/A = not applicable.

Data by war period are not available.

Fiscal Year 1997 DVOP Positions, Cost per Position, Administration and Support Percentage, and Initial Grant Award

DVOP administration and support (percent) (continued)

DVOP administration and support (percent)

N/A = not applicable.

Statutory Formula for LVER Staff Positions and Statutory Positions for Fiscal Year 1997

The following is an example of the LVER formula calculation for the state of Minnesota for fiscal year 1997. Minnesota had 31 LVER positions as of January 1, 1987. In addition, VETS data showed that Minnesota had a total of 462,000 veterans residing in the state compared with 26,202,696 veterans residing in the United States (462,000/26,202,696 = 1.76 percent), a total of 35,357 veterans who registered for assistance compared with 2,299,303 veterans who registered in the United States (35,357/2,299,303 = 1.54 percent), and

21 full-service local employment services offices compared with 1,920 full-service employment services offices in the United States (21/1,920 = 1.10 percent).

To continue the calculation, VETS adds the three percentages (1.76 + 1.54 + 1.10 = 4.40), then divides by 3 (4.40/3 = 1.47). VETS then applies 1.47 to the 161 positions, which would give Minnesota an additional 2 positions (161 x .0147 = 2). To complete the calculation, VETS takes the number of positions Minnesota had on board as of January 1, 1987, plus 1, then adds in the 2 additional positions resulting from the percentage calculations (31 + 1 = 32 + 2 = 34), giving Minnesota 34 formula-level LVER positions for fiscal year 1997.

Total full-service job service offices (continued)

Total full-service job service offices (continued)

Fiscal Year 1997 LVER Positions, Cost per Position, Administration and Support Percentage, and Initial Grant Award

LVER administration and support (percent) (continued)

Program Year 1995 Applicants and Veterans’ Performance Standards

Table VII.1: Number of Applicants for Program Year 1995 (continued)

Table VII.4: Percentage Counseled in Program Year 1995 (continued)

Table VII.5: Percentage Placed in Training in Program Year 1995 (continued) (continued)

DVOP and LVER Starting and Full-Performance Salaries

Content Analysis of DVOP and LVER Survey Comments

In responding to our mail survey, 58.5 percent of DVOP specialists and 52.6 percent of LVER staff added comments on the final page of the survey. To accurately represent those veterans who made comments, a 25-percent random sample of the 1,513 surveys with comments was analyzed. Comments on each of the 378 surveys were coded, and the resulting 670 comments were categorized according to their content. Over 51 percent of the 378 sampled surveys were completed by DVOP specialists, while the remaining sample surveys represented LVER staff responses.

Analysis of the comments indicated an interest in maintaining veterans’ employment services delivered by DVOP and LVER staff. In general, the response rate illustrated that many DVOP and LVER staff have concerns about and frustrations with the current quality of the employment programs. Although some DVOP and LVER staff used the comments section to praise the current programs, the majority suggested that the programs lacked resources or should be revised to enhance services to veterans.

The comments were placed in initial categories on the basis of their content. These categories, ordered according to relative frequency, are listed in table IX.1. The comment categories are discussed in detail in the text following the table.

No.

Not Enough Resources

“The Law states that the DVOP staff is supposed to be in addition to the regular staff and not to supplant it. However, the state has reduced regular interviewer staff. As a result, everything that can be legally pushed off on the LVER/DVOP is. We have so many collateral functions, especially job order and employer visits, not for specific veterans but general job orders, many of which do not pay enough for most of our clients. We spend so much time that we do not have adequate time to help those veterans who need us.” “ too much job insecurity in the DVOP/LVER grant program. losing some outstanding veteran representatives due to civil service restrictions and seniority.”

In addition to concerns about funding and staff shortages, respondents expressed concerns about the lack of privacy when meeting with clients about personal issues relating to their disabilities, as well as the limited time with each client also resulting from staff shortages.

Description of Responsibilities

“Use of DVOP/LVER for nonveteran related functions (i.e. providing services to nonveterans, use as receptionist, and other administrative functions) detracts from primary role.” “Vet staff duties include, but are not limited to: intake, assessment, career counseling, outreach, radio show . . . , job fairs, 4-5 committee . . . , resource center assignment of 8 hours per week each (16 of 37.5 hour work week is manned by veteran staff).” “This position outreaches to the indigent veteran population in this community through weekly visits to the Coalition for the Homeless, Salvation Army Rehabilitation Center, etc.”

Management Interference Within the Local Office

“I would like the follow the rules under Title 38 Chapter 41 as it relates to the DVOPs and LVER programs. Emphasize that the DVOPs’ work with the disabled veterans “ONLY” and ensure the mainstream employment. We need a name of a person(s) to call when management refuses to follow the law as written Title 38 Chapter 41. This will stop the intimidation of management thinking they can treat and use DVOPs and LVERs anyway they choose.”

Lack of Veteran-Friendly Environment in Local Office

“Recently, when incorrect procedures were identified in veteran referral [by non-DVOP or LVER staff], the manager stated that the staff should take care of her nonvet staff. If any questions arise, she immediately defends the nonvet staff and implies that the [DVOP and LVER] staff has an attitude problem. Also, she frequently states (relating to office procedures) that if it is not in writing, she does not have to justify it. The [DVOP and LVER] staff caught in the middle.”

Promote Federalizing of DVOP and LVER Programs

“I strongly feel that I should be able to perform as a DVOP without fear of reprisal. Therefore, the duties of the DVOP should be mandated by the Federal Government and not left up to the local office managers to dictate policy.” “. . . State control of a Federal [VETS] program, especially the vets job program, results in 50+ ways of doing the same job. Title 38 is meaningless when dumped into a state political quagmire. It gets diluted and receives varied support and enactment, depending on the political complexion of the state.”

Concern About Low or Unequal DVOP/LVER Pay Between States

“If all LVERs/DVOPs were federalized, they would all be under one set of rules, a single chain of command, and much better relationship with the VA. Standardized pay scale would greatly help in retaining quality veteran employment representatives, instead of the “gap” of several thousands of dollars per year in pay from state to state.” “The LVER/DVOPs in our office are both motivated professionals with college degrees (most nonvet staff have no college degree). We start at an annual salary which is $6,000 a year lower than the average state per capita income.”

Performance Standards

“I feel that close monitoring of activities performed by LVERs and DVOPs should be kept and that managers and supervisors be made aware of the duties of the representatives so that these representatives are able to perform the job that they are being paid to do.”

In this case, the comment suggests that state-level involvement will help enforce federal guidelines so that DVOP and LVER staff are able to work under the federal regulations without local interference.

Up-to-Date Computer Technology and Training

“Better computer capability would help our clients and staff. Laptops with reasonable applications software, remote access to the state system for use during outreach assignments and internet/PCs options might bring us into the 1990s in dealing with/for our clients.” “I think that if we as DVOPs have computers so could have more information at our fingertips, we could do our jobs better and be more useful to our vets that we serve. Such things: Internet, LMI, America’s Job Bank, Word, and Windows.” “As a DVOP staffer, I feel I could better serve my veterans if I had access to a computer where I am outstationed at a veteran center. A number of my clients have to be referred to the local office because of nonaccess to a computer.”

Comments Regarding the National Veterans’ Training Institute

Of the 8.2 percent who made comments concerning the National Veterans’ Training Institute, over 80 percent were positive and cited the national training as essential to learning the duties of DVOP and LVER staff. Many DVOP and LVER staff who had not received the training asked to be sent to the National Veterans’ Training Institute because they had seen the benefits in their colleagues. Others believed that even more detailed institute training would be useful. The 20 percent in the minority who believed that the National Veterans’ Training Institute was not a good program often believed that their own state could have provided more state-specific training. Still others believed the training was not cost-efficient.

Comments About TAP, VR&C Duties, or VR&C Coordination With DVOP Program Lacking

“The coordination between VR&C and this office is almost nil. Of the eight (8) years I’ve been working in the vets program, about three times have I had a vet referred to me by VR&C, and all had already received job employment services . . . . I’ve visited VR&C on four occasions and asked to have disabled and special disabled referred to me but, besides that, there’s no coordination between our offices. I’ve been to TAP training, but I haven’t given one TAP session.” “As I am deeply involved in both TAP and VR&C case management I feel both programs are invaluable to those I serve. The programs provide a quality product at a minimum cost, while at the same time helping put informed, productive workers into the labor pool, or directly into jobs with employers.” “Through the TAP program, which is the first line information center for veterans, we tell our veterans to contact their local LVER or DVOP for information and assistance in finding out about veteran programs, employment, and financial assistance. We become an information service, a tracking service, and, most important, the first step back to the mainstream of life for the disabled, or impaired, vet.”

Change in Employment Services and Changes to One-Stop Career Centers

“Being the only state to allow private industry bids for one-stop career centers, we are in turmoil to help vets and other clients. can’t access job details for areas served by private one-stops. One-stop centers have become a political issue with total fragmentation of our system—the loser is the job hunting client. I cannot control this but see it as a major problem affecting the public and vets.”

Protect Veterans’ Services

In general, the comments on the LVER and DVOP questionnaire were highly favorable toward veterans. Over 17 percent of the respondents specifically discussed title 38 and provided testimonials about how important it is to continue providing veterans’ employment services. “The LVER/DVOP Program is a key to the only help some veterans will receive, don’t throw away that key to that help. Fund the Employment Services and the LVER/DVOP Program as it should be and let us continue helping veterans and others as they should be helped.” “Keep the DVER/DVOP-LVER vet employment representation program . . . it is one of the few cost-effective and successful programs in . . . government that actually works!” “Veterans allow us to have rights, it’s important that we as a nation protect their rights.”

Tables Supporting Figures in Report Text

Comments From the Department of Labor

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals provided valuable technical assistance to this report: Dianne Murphy Blank, Linda Choy, Wayne Dow, Arthur Merriam, and Kelly Mikelson.

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.