JVA amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the legislation that governs the DVOP and LVER programs, and by doing so, introduced an array of reforms to the way employment, training, and placement services are provided to veterans under the DVOP and LVER programs. (See table 1.) The act also required increased veterans’ access to electronic services as well as to different types of Labor employment and training programs by requiring them to give veterans priority in receiving their services. In addition, it required federal contractors to advertise job openings at the appropriate employment service delivery system and report on their veteran hiring practices. Within Labor, VETS has primary responsibility for helping the nation’s veterans find employment. Among the programs that VETS administers are the DVOP and LVER programs, which were funded at about $162 million in fiscal year 2005. VETS administers the agency’s activities through representatives in each of Labor’s six regional offices and within each state. The state directors are the link between VETS and each state’s employment service system that is overseen by the ETA. The DVOP and LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part of the state’s public employment service system. Employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services program within each state, providing a national system of public employment services to any individual seeking employment who is authorized to work in the United States. Like VETS, ETA carries out its employment service program through staff in Labor’s six regions and workforce agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2005, ETA requested about $700 million for the Wagner- Peyser program. The DVOP and LVER programs, along with the Employment Services program, are all mandatory partners in the one-stop center system created in 1998 by WIA and overseen by Labor, in which services provided by numerous employment and training programs are made available through a single network. Labor and states have taken action to implement most JVA provisions to reform veterans’ services since the law was enacted in November 2002, but challenges remain particularly in implementing reforms to improve accountability for the DVOP and LVER programs. Labor issued guidance clarifying the new roles and responsibilities for veterans’ staff and allocated funding to states for an incentive program. Labor has also established performance measures aligned with state workforce systems under WIA as required by JVA. However, Labor reports that states will not be held accountable to a common national standard for veterans’ employment until 2007. (See table 2.) States also report good progress in implementing provisions, but challenges remain in some local areas in terms of integrating veterans’ staff with other employment services staff in local workforce centers. Many states also have not implemented an incentive program as provided in JVA for recognizing quality services to veterans. VETS took several steps to prepare veterans’ staff for their new roles and responsibilities under the law, and while the majority of state workforce administrators reported that these staff had transitioned to a greater focus on intensive services for veterans and employer outreach as required by JVA, challenges remained in the areas of training and integrating staff in some one-stop offices. VETS began issuing guidance to transition staff to their new roles in 2002, and a training program soon followed in 2003. Both Labor’s formal written guidance and technical assistance was well- received, with almost three-quarters of the 50 state workforce officials reporting on our survey that the quality was good or excellent in facilitating implementation of new staff duties. VETS officials cited challenges, however, in meeting all training needs for veterans’ staff informing them of their new roles and responsibilities under the act. While Labor’s training institute continues to conduct and fund training, it estimated that the current funding would cover training for only about 16 percent of all veterans’ staff each year, while annual staff turnover was averaging about 18 percent. In terms of staff integration, Labor officials said that integrating staff into the one-stop offices has been a persistent challenge and the DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed cited a wide variation of integration in local areas. Reasons these staff cited for poor integration included a lack of support by the local office manager, the lack of education and training for other one-stop staff members on serving veterans, and only fair to poor quality of Labor’s guidance and technical assistance to states in how to integrate veterans’ staff into the local one- stop offices. VETS issued guidance in time to establish an incentive program in the first fiscal year after JVA, and 32 of the 50 state workforce administrators we surveyed reported implementing the program. State workforce officials in 17 states that did not implement the program cited various reasons. California, for example, cited that state law prohibited monetary or other gifts to employees for performing their duties. Idaho cited potential morale problems among one-stop staff that have limited opportunities to serve veterans. Four other states cited that the awards were incompatible with the states’ collective bargaining agreements. VETS officials said that some states had been more successful than others in designing their awards system and state opinions were mixed on the extent that the incentive programs resulted in improved services. Administrators in 16 states with award programs in place reported that their program had a positive effect on improving or modernizing veterans’ services. On the other hand, administrators in 15 other states either said that their incentive program had no effect (7 states) or that it was too early to say (8 states). Labor has taken action to establish a new accountability system as required by JVA, but reports that more time is needed under the new system before it can hold all states accountable to the same standard for veterans’ employment. As required by the act, Labor established some new performance measures for the DVOP and LVER grant programs in 2003 consistent with state performance measures under WIA. VETS officials told us they made additional modifications to the performance accountability system when they adopted the Office of Management and Budget’s new common performance measures in July 2005. As these new systems were put in place, VETS officials said they also changed the method they use to calculate the entered employment measure and collect source data. However, VETS anticipates it will need at least 3 years under these measures—until 2007—to collect comparable trend data needed to establish the national performance standard holding all states accountable to the same minimum goal for the rate veterans enter employment. While data are not available to link the JVA reforms to changes in veterans’ services and employment outcomes, most state workforce administrators we surveyed believed that the reforms have improved the quality of services to veterans, and have improved their employment outcomes. Overall, 33 of the 50 state workforce administrators reported that veterans’ employment services have improved in their respective states since the law’s enactment. Among six different services we asked about, administrators most often reported that DVOP staff were spending more time on case management since JVA, although somewhat fewer states reported that services to disabled veterans had similarly improved. (See fig. 1.) Workforce administrators in 33 states also reported improvement in veterans’ employment results. These respondents attributed the improvement both to the law’s reforms and to other factors. The reform cited most often as helping veterans obtain employment was the increased availability of case management or other intensive services through the DVOP program. Other than the reforms themselves, administrators said veterans’ employment was influenced by employer willingness or desire to hire veterans and by the strength of the local job market. (See fig. 2.) In terms of barriers to employment, state administrators reported that federal contractor failure to list job openings at the local one-stop centers was a factor under most likely to delay or prevent some employment. Other factors also presented obstacles to employment, the most frequent one being a poor local job market. This factor was cited nearly twice more often as other factors, such as non-transferability of skills or employer reluctance to hire veterans with National Guard or Reserve commitments. (See fig. 3.) Labor oversight and accountability for the DVOP and LVER programs has been affected by the lack of data available from local workforce offices in some states, as well as the lack of coordination among Labor agencies in monitoring and sharing information gathered on program performance. While state VETS directors responding to our survey most often reported that their monitoring role under JVA has had a positive effect on local accountability, 19 directors reported their monitoring role either had no effect or a negative effect. Our survey showed two main reasons for the lack of a stronger effect. Lack of Local Level Data. In our survey, state VETS directors reported that performance data from local offices are not available in many states, limiting federal oversight and weakening local level accountability. State VETS directors reported in our survey that among four different tools used to monitor local office performance, the most beneficial were analysis and use of data captured in states’ performance reports, along with on-site reviews of local offices. Under JVA, states took on greater responsibility for assessing their own performance, and VETS modified its monitoring practices in response by extending the time between site visits to local offices from 1 year to 5 years. VETS directors in 21 states, however, noted that data were not available to monitor performance of local offices, and in these states, federal oversight may be limited to the on-site monitoring visits by VETS directors required once every 5 years. Lack of Coordinated Oversight. While Labor agencies are jointly responsible for monitoring employment and training services, little or no effort has been made to coordinate oversight or use the monitoring results to target assistance to states and localities that are most in need. For example, while VETS is responsible for monitoring performance of the DVOP and LVER programs, ETA oversees other workforce programs that serve veterans as well as nonveterans, such as WIA and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services. However, the two agencies do not generally coordinate their monitoring activities or share the results. Only five state VETS directors reported that they met with ETA officials to share monitoring results and take joint action to address problems. Labor also lacks a strategy for using the monitoring information it gathers to improve performance across states and local areas. While Labor has authority under JVA to provide technical assistance to states that are deficient in performance or need help, VETS has yet to begin addressing the significant variation in performance levels among states, as reflected by their widely divergent performance goals. For example, in program years 2004 and 2005, states’ negotiated goals for the rate at which veterans entered employment ranged from 38 to 65 percent, while Labor’s national employment goal for veterans was 58 percent. Although more than half of the state goals fell short of Labor’s national target, VETS has not been proactive in determining why certain states are falling behind and in targeting them for assistance. Our report recommended that the Secretary of Labor provide clear guidance to integrate veterans’ staff into the one-stops and foster state use of incentives. We also recommended that Labor’s program offices coordinate their oversight of JVA provisions, and that Labor use monitoring results to develop program improvements. Labor agreed with our recommendations. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at this time. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Lacinda Ayers, Meeta Engle, and Stan Stenersen were key contributors to this testimony. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans’ Employment Services. GAO-06-176. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2005. Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations on Changes to Veterans’ Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance Measurement System Improved, but Further Changes Needed. GAO-01-580. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1999. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998. Veterans’ Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 1997. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: The number of service members leaving active duty is likely to increase by 200,000 yearly, according to the Department of Labor. To improve employment and training services for veterans and to encourage employers to hire them, Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act in 2002, which reformed Labor's Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program. This testimony summarizes GAO's recent review of progress implementing the act, including the development of new staff roles and responsibilities, incentive awards, and performance accountability system. GAO examined (1) actions taken to improve performance and accountability since the law's enactment and any associated challenges, (2) whether available data indicate that such action has resulted in improved employment outcomes for veterans, and (3) factors affecting program oversight an accountability. Labor implemented most reforms under the Jobs for Veterans' Act (JVA) to improve the DVOP and LVER programs within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, it has not yet fully implemented measures to improve state accountability for these programs. Specifically, Labor reports that states will not be held accountable to the same standard for veterans' employment until 2007. States also report substantial progress implementing the law, but integrating veterans' staff with other one-stop staff remains challenging in some local areas. In addition, about one-third of the states did not establish incentive programs for their workforce personnel because state laws, policies, or agreements conflict with this JVA provision. Most state workforce administrators surveyed reported that the new legislation has improved both the quality of services to veterans and their employment outcomes. For example, they reported that services provided to disabled veterans have improved. They also credited the greater availability of case management and outreach to new employers for much of the improvement in employment outcomes under JVA. Aside from the law's influence, state administrators cited the willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local job market as significant factors affecting veterans' employment. About half of state directors of Veterans' Employment and Training reported their new monitoring role had strengthened local program accountability. However, just over a third reported that accountability had either lessened or not improved. Some partly attributed this to absence of local performance data and fewer annual visits to one-stop centers. GAO found, as well, that a lack of coordination among Labor's agencies responsible for certain JVA provisions has weakened accountability. Also, while Labor has developed a system to monitor program performance, it lacks a strategy for using the information it gathers to make improvements and to help states.