The nation’s veteran job seekers receive employment and training services from programs overseen by two agencies within Labor—the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service and the Employment and Training Administration. General employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service program, providing a national system of public employment services to all individuals seeking employment—including veterans. Thus, those veterans considered job ready and not in need of intensive services may be served by Employment Service staff and receive such services as assessment, counseling, job readiness evaluation, and placement. ETA carries out its Employment Service program through workforce agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2006, the Employment Service program provided a total of about $716 million to states. While ETA administers programs that serve the general population, including veterans, VETS administers the DVOP and LVER programs, which focus exclusively on serving veterans, often providing more intensive services than the Employment Service does. Like ETA, VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that includes representation in each of Labor’s six regions and staff in each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers the agency’s activities through regional administrators and state directors. The DVOP specialists and LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part of states’ public employment services. In fiscal year 2006, the DVOP and LVER programs were funded at about $155 million. In the most recent program year—program year 2005, which spanned July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006—the Employment Service, together with the DVOP and LVER programs, reported serving about 1.32 million veterans nationwide, of whom over 715,000 were served by DVOP specialists and LVER staff. The Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER programs are mandatory partners in the one-stop system under WIA—where services are provided by a range of employment and training programs in a single location. Veterans, along with other eligible job seekers, may receive services from other mandatory one-stop partners, such as WIA-funded training or Trade Adjustment Assistance. Additionally, job seekers, including veterans, may use the one-stop centers’ computers and other resources without staff assistance, and in many places may access one- stop services online from home. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) programs are not mandatory partners in the one-stop system, but do participate at some locations. In 2002, the Jobs for Veterans Act amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code-- which governs the DVOP and LVER programs—and by doing so, introduced an array of reforms to the way employment and training services are provided to veterans. JVA sought to address concerns that the programs were overly prescriptive by providing states with enhanced flexibility to determine the best way to serve veteran job seekers. Among its reforms, JVA redefined the DVOP specialist and LVER staff roles but gave states flexibility in deciding their duties; established a single state grant and a new funding formula that allowed states to determine the mix of DVOP specialists and LVER staff; required a comprehensive performance accountability system consistent with WIA performance measures; required that veterans receive priority over other job seekers in all Labor job training programs, not just the Employment Service; and required that VETS include information in its annual report to Congress on employment services to veterans throughout the one-stop system. JVA identified broad roles and responsibilities of DVOP specialists and LVER staff. For example, DVOP specialists are to focus on providing intensive services to eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled veterans and those with other barriers to employment. LVER staff are to focus on conducting outreach to employers to assist veterans in gaining employment, as well as facilitating employment, training, and placement services given to veterans. State workforce agencies receive a single veterans’ program grant to fund both programs; the amount each state receives is determined in part by the size of the veteran population within each state. State agencies then decide how to distribute the amount they receive between the two programs. Table 1 lists selected responsibilities of DVOP specialists and LVER staff as set forth in Labor guidance. JVA also stipulated that veteran job seekers must receive priority over other job seekers in any job training program administered by Labor. Labor’s guidance requires states to explain how veterans will be given priority and how veterans’ services will be provided through the state’s one-stop system. For programs that target particular populations, such as seniors or low-income individuals, veterans’ priority is applied after any other mandatory eligibility provisions are met. Like other Labor employment and training programs, the DVOP and LVER programs have experienced changes both in the way outcomes are tracked and in the measures used to assess performance. Specifically, in 1998, WIA required that states use automated unemployment insurance wage records to track employment-related outcomes. Formerly, to obtain data on outcomes, states relied on a manual follow-up process using administrative records or contacts with job seekers. To conform to WIA, VETS moved from such a manual follow-up system to the new automated process in 2002. The measures that Labor uses to assess performance in the DVOP and LVER programs have also changed over time, gradually reflecting more emphasis on outcome-based measures. Before passage of the JVA in 2002, for example, some of the measures used for the DVOP and LVER programs focused more on services received—such as the number of veterans in training or receiving counseling—than on outcomes achieved. In 2002, JVA required that Labor develop a comprehensive performance accountability system and required that the new system measure performance in a way that is consistent with WIA. In 2003, VETS adopted performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs based on those then used in WIA. In 2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiative, Labor began requiring states to implement common performance measures for its employment and training programs, including the DVOP and LVER programs, the Employment Service, and WIA. OMB established a set of common measures to be applied to most federally funded job training programs that share similar goals. Labor further defined the common measures for all of its Employment and Training Administration programs, applying three measures to each of its adult programs (see table 2). In applying the common measures to its programs, VETS also developed additional measures to emphasize outcomes for disabled veterans in the DVOP program and outcomes for recently separated veterans in the LVER program. Labor collects performance data for the DVOP and LVER programs on a quarterly basis from state workforce agencies. The state agencies use report formats developed by Labor to provide detailed tabulations of aggregate information on the characteristics of veteran participants, services, and outcomes for the two programs, including data showing states’ performance using the common measures. The state agencies provide this information to Labor in three separate reports: one for the DVOP program, one for the LVER program, and one representing an unduplicated count for both programs. Furthermore, Labor collects additional information on veterans who participate in other Labor programs. For example, ETA collects performance data for the Employment Service on all participants on a quarterly basis from state workforce agencies, and these reports break out services and outcomes for veteran participants. States submit their quarterly reports for the Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER programs through the same Labor reporting system. Information on the services a program has provided and the outcomes obtained by program participants are necessary to assess program impacts. However, this information is not sufficient to measure program impacts—the outcomes may be due to other external factors such as local labor market conditions. While impact evaluations allow one to isolate a program’s effect on the outcomes of participants, there are several approaches to conducting such evaluations. The experimental method is often considered the most rigorous method for conducting impact evaluations. In the experimental method, participants are randomly assigned to two groups—one that receives a program service (or treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting outcome data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes between the groups is taken to demonstrate the programs impact. However, it is not always feasible to use the experimental method for assessing program impacts. Alternatively, researchers may use a quasi- experimental approach in which program participation is not randomly assigned. One approach, often called a comparison group study, compares outcome data for individuals who participated in the program with data on others who did not participate for various reasons. In a comparison group study, it is important to find ways to minimize, or statistically control for, any differences between the two groups. According to OMB, well-matched comparison group studies, under certain circumstances, can approach the rigor of the experimental method, and it recommends considering this method if random assignment is not feasible or appropriate. Under WIA, Labor was required to conduct at least one impact evaluation of program services by 2005. In a 2004 report, we found that Labor had not yet begun such an evaluation, and recommended that the agency comply with this statutory requirement and help federal, state, and local policy makers understand what services are most effective for improving employment-related outcomes. The DVOP and LVER programs’ performance information is weakened by several factors, including implementation challenges and frequent changes to performance reporting requirements. In July 2005, Labor implemented new performance measures, which provide information on some outcomes for veterans. However, not all performance measures have been fully implemented. Additionally, neither the performance measures nor the data reported to Labor reflect the full range of services that DVOP specialists and LVER staff provide to veteran job seekers. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess outcomes over time or across states because of frequent changes in states’ reporting requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend data. In July 2005, the DVOP and LVER programs adopted the Office of Management and Budget’s common measures, along with other employment programs, including WIA and the Employment Service.