Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Greater Flexibility
and Accountability Needed to Better Serve Veterans (30-OCT-01,
GAO-02-192T).
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representative
(LVER) program are grants programs that allow states to hire
staff members to serve veterans exclusively. The DVOP and LVER
programs are mandatory partners in the new one-stop center system
created in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which
requires that services provided by numerous employment and
training programs be made available through one-stop centers and
gives states the flexibility to design services better suited to
local workforce needs. Although the DVOP and LVER programs must
operate within the one-stop system, WIA does not govern the
programs--and the law that governs them does not provide the same
flexibility as WIA. Because Congress sees employment service for
veterans as a national responsibility, it established the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) to carry out the
national policy that veterans receive priority employment and
training opportunities and that disabled veterans and Vietnam-era
veterans be made a special priority. In order to make better use
of DVOP and LVER staff services, VETS needs the legislative
authority to grant each state more flexibility to design how this
staff will fit into the one-stop center system. VETS also needs
to be able to hold states accountable for achieving agreed upon
goals. Veterans receive priority employment service at one-stop
centers as required under the law, but the effectiveness of the
services, as indicated by the resulting employment, cannot be
determined because VETS does not require states to collect
sufficient data to measure outcomes veterans achieve from these
services. VETS does not adequately oversee the DVOP and LVER
program grants because it does not have a comprehensive system in
place to manage state performance in serving veterans. VETS has
not adequately adapted the DVOP and LVER programs to the new
one-stop environment and determined how best to fit them into the
one-stop system.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-192T
ACCNO: A02396
TITLE: Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Greater
Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Better Serve Veterans
DATE: 10/30/2001
SUBJECT: Employment or training programs
Funds management
Grant administration
Grant monitoring
Veterans benefits
Veterans employment programs
DOL Disabled Veterans Outreach Program
DOL Local Veterans Employment Reps
Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-192T
Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives
United States General Accounting Office
GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 00 a. m., Tuesday, October 30,
2001 VETERANS'
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE
Greater Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Better Serve Veterans
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues
GAO- 02- 192T
Page 1 GAO- 02- 192T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today
to present the findings of our report on how the Department of Labor?s two
primary veterans? employment assistance grants- the Disabled Veterans?
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local Veterans? Employment
Representative (LVER) program- might be improved. 1 These grants allow
states to hire staff members to serve veterans exclusively. The DVOP and
LVER programs are mandatory partners in the new one- stop center system
created in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA requires that
services provided by numerous employment and training programs be made
available through one- stop centers and gives states the flexibility to
design services better suited to local workforce needs.
However, while the DVOP and LVER programs must operate within the one- stop
system, WIA does not govern the programs- and the law that governs them does
not provide the same flexibility as WIA. Because the Congress sees
employment service for veterans as a national responsibility, the Congress
established the Veterans? Employment and Training Service (VETS) to carry
out the national policy that veterans receive priority employment and
training opportunities and that disabled veterans and Vietnam- era veterans
be made a special priority. 2 Because the law that governs VETS and these
programs does not provide the same flexibility as WIA, this has caused some
to question how well the DVOP and LVER staff are being integrated into the
one- stop center environment.
Our report assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of VETS? administration
of the DVOP and LVER staffing grants. Specifically, we focused on
how well veterans are provided employment services through the one- stop
center, including the DVOP and LVER staff; how well VETS oversees the DVOP
and LVER grants awarded to states;
and how well the DVOP and LVER programs operate within the new one- stop
center environment. 1 Veterans? Employment and Training Service: Flexibility
and Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans (GAO- 01- 928,
Sept. 12, 2001). 2 Federal laws pertaining to veterans? issues are in title
38 of the U. S. Code. The portions relating to the employment and training
services are in chapters 41, 42, and 43.
Page 2 GAO- 02- 192T
Overall, we found that in order to make better use of DVOP and LVER staff
services, VETS needs the legislative authority to grant each state more
flexibility to design how this staff will fit into the one- stop center
system. VETS also needs to be able to hold states accountable for achieving
agreed upon goals. Specifically, we found:
Veterans receive priority employment service at one- stop centers as
required under the law, but the effectiveness of the services, as indicated
by the resulting employment, cannot be determined because VETS does not
require states to collect sufficient data to measure the outcomes veterans
achieve from these services.
VETS does not adequately oversee the DVOP and LVER program grants because
it does not have a comprehensive system in place to manage state performance
in serving veterans.
VETS has not adequately adapted the DVOP and LVER programs to the new one-
stop center environment and determined how best to fit them into the one-
stop system.
In our report, we made several recommendations to the Secretary of Labor to
establish more effective management and monitoring of the DVOP and LVER
programs. We also suggest that the Congress take steps to ensure that the
DVOP and LVER programs can be more fully integrated into the new one- stop
center system environment by amending the law to provide more flexibility
and improved accountability to serve veterans.
Our review was based on discussions with VETS officials; visits to five
states- Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas- where we interviewed
VETS and state employment agency officials, including local office managers
and DVOP and LVER staff; and telephone interviews with employment agency
officials in 25 additional states. We also contacted officials from various
veterans? service organizations and the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies.
The Congress established VETS in 1980 to carry out the national policy that
veterans receive priority employment and training opportunities. Faced with
growing long- term challenges of new service delivery systems, an evolving
labor market, and changing technology, VETS? vision is to find innovative
ways to maximize the effectiveness of its efforts. VETS? strategic plan
states that it will seek new and effective means to help veterans compete
successfully for better paying career jobs- helping them get on a track that
can provide improved income stability and growth potential. Background
Page 3 GAO- 02- 192T
VETS provides states with grants for DVOP and LVER staff according to the
formula outlined in the law. 3 The grant agreements include assurances by
states that the DVOP and LVER staff members serve eligible veterans
exclusively. Under federal law, all employment service staff 4 must give
priority to serving veterans, and the assignment of DVOP and LVER staff to
local offices does not relieve other employment and training program staff
of this requirement. The law prescribes various duties to DVOP and LVER
staff members that are intended to provide veterans with job search plans
and referrals and job training opportunities.
While the state- employed DVOP and LVER staff are the front- line providers
for services to veterans, VETS carries out its responsibilities, as outlined
in the law, through a nationwide network that includes regional and state
representation. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans?
Employment and Training administers the DVOP and LVER staffing grants
through regional administrators and directors in each state, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In larger states, an
assistant director is appointed for every 250,000 veterans in the state.
These federally paid VETS staff ensure that states carry out their
obligations to provide service to veterans, including the services provided
under the DVOP and LVER grants.
To ensure priority service to veterans, VETS expects states to provide
employment and training services to veterans at a rate exceeding the service
provided to nonveterans. For example, VETS requires that veterans receive
services at a rate 15 percent higher than nonveterans. Thus, if a state?s
placement rate for nonveterans was 10 percent, the placement rate for
veterans should be 11.5 percent, or 15 percent higher than the nonveteran
placement rate. There are also greater expectations for serving Vietnam- era
veterans and disabled veterans.
As required by law, VETS must report to the Congress on states? performance
in five service categories. Historically, VETS has used these
3 For fiscal year 2001, VETS? total appropriation was about $187 million,
including $81.6 million for DVOP specialists and $77.3 million for LVER
staff. The appropriation also provided $2 million for the National Veterans?
Training Institute, and the remaining amount, $26 million, was allocated for
VETS? administrative costs.
4 The Wagner- Peyser Act of 1933 created a national system of public
employment service offices to provide employment services to individuals
seeking employment and to employers seeking workers. These employment
service staff members are now partners in the new one- stop center system.
Page 4 GAO- 02- 192T
same performance categories to measure state performance for serving
veterans at a higher rate than nonveterans. The performance categories
include: (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.
In our past reviews of VETS? programs, we have recommended changes to VETS?
performance measures and plans. Recently, we have noted that VETS had
proposed performance measures that were more in- line with those established
under WIA; the measures focused more on what VETS? programs achieve and less
on the number of services provided to veterans relative to nonveterans. 5
Although the law still stipulates that VETS is to report to the Congress on
the five service categories, VETS plans to eliminate the requirement that
states compare services provided to veterans with those provided to
nonveterans. However, we have reported that VETS still lacked measures to
gauge the effectiveness of services or whether more staff- intense services
helped veterans obtain jobs.
Veterans receive priority employment services at one- stop centers as
required under the law, but the effectiveness of these services cannot be
determined. Based on state- gathered data reported to VETS and interviews
with state officials, we found that veterans generally received employment
service at a higher rate than nonveterans. However, the effectiveness of
these services is unknown because VETS lacks adequate outcome data such as
information on job retention and wages. The only outcome data collected- the
percentage of veterans served entering employment- are often collected
inconsistently from state to state.
Priority service to veterans at one- stop centers is usually demonstrated by
the higher rates of service for veterans as compared with those for
nonveterans. Most one- stop centers provide priority services to veterans
through the DVOP and LVER staff who can provide an elevated level of service
to veterans. Because veterans have these dedicated staff to serve them, they
also receive more intensive services, and receive these services more
readily, than nonveterans. Other examples of priority service include
5 See Veterans? Employment and Training Service: Further Changes Needed to
Strengthen Its Performance Measurement System (GAO- 01- 757T, June 7, 2001)
and
Veterans? Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance Measurement
System Improved, But Further Changes Needed (GAO- 01- 580, May 15, 2001).
Veterans Receive
Priority Service, but Effectiveness of Service Is Unknown
Page 5 GAO- 02- 192T
identifying and contacting qualified veterans before the universal
population has access to employers? job openings that will be posted on the
states? job database. States may have other special services exclusively for
veterans, such as designated computers or special information packets on
available resources.
While priority service can be provided in different ways depending on the
one- stop center, most state officials and one- stop center managers we
spoke with said that they primarily used DVOP and LVER staff to provide
priority service to veterans since these staff must assist veterans
exclusively. DVOP and LVER staff members have smaller caseloads than other
employment services staff and, consequently, have more time to spend with
individuals. Veterans also have better access to intensive services, such as
counseling and case management, than nonveterans because DVOP and LVER staff
are funded independently of WIA and are not subject to restrictions
applicable to WIA- funded programs. 6 According to many state officials as
well as DVOP and LVER staff, the DVOP and LVER staff members relate better
to veterans because they are generally veterans themselves. For example,
because they are familiar with the processes at the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), DVOP and LVER staff can more easily help veterans file
disability claims with the VA or help them to receive the appropriate
disability benefits.
While veterans received priority employment services at one- stop centers,
VETS does not currently collect appropriate data for determining the
effectiveness of these services and the agency lacks sufficient employment
outcome data that would indicate whether services provided to veterans were
effective. VETS has proposed changes to its performance measures, such as
requiring states to report job retention, but will not implement these
changes until July 1, 2002. In past reviews, we have pointed out that VETS?
use of relative standards comparing the percentage of veterans
6 Moreover, where funding is limited, recipients of public assistance and
other low- income individuals must receive priority access to WIA- funded
intensive services and training. Because DVOP and LVER staff members are not
WIA- funded, they may provide intensive services for any eligible veteran
without regard to this provision.
Page 6 GAO- 02- 192T
entering employment with that of nonveterans is not effective. 7 This
comparison results in states with poor levels of service to nonveterans
being held to lower standards for service to veterans than states with
better overall performance.
The only outcome data that states currently report to VETS- the percentage
of veterans entering employment after registering for employment services-
is collected inconsistently from state to state. Some states compare their
employment service registration records with unemployment insurance wage
records, but others may simply call employers for employment verification or
send postcards or letters to customers asking whether they have obtained
employment. Some DVOP and LVER staff had more time than other employment and
training staff for follow- ups by telephone or mail, resulting in more
complete employment data for some veterans.
In addition, states and local workforce investment areas choose to register
customers at different stages of the job search process, thus the percentage
of ?registered? veterans entering employment may differ based on when they
were required to register. In some areas, customers register to use any
service, including self- service; in other areas, they are only required to
register when using staff- assisted services. Those who find employment
before being registered are not counted as having entered employment after
using self- service resources available through the onestop center.
Consequently, the reported percentage of veterans served who entered
employment is not comparable from state to state.
7 See Veterans? Employment and Training Service: Better Planning Needed to
Address Future Needs (GAO/ T- HEHS- 00- 206, Sept. 27, 2000); Veterans?
Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance Plans Lack Vision
and Clarity (GA0/ T- HEHS- 99- 177, July 29, 1999); Veterans? Employment and
Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Plan (GAO/
HEHS- 98- 240R, Sept. 30, 1998); Veterans? Employment and Training: Services
Provided by Labor Department Programs (GAO/ HEHS- 98- 7, Oct. 17, 1997); and
Veterans? Employment and Training Service: Focusing on Program Results to
Improve Agency Performance (GAO/ T- HEHS- 97- 129, May 7, 1997).
Page 7 GAO- 02- 192T
Despite recently proposed improvements to its performance measures, VETS?
overall management of the DVOP and LVER grants is ineffective because the
agency does not have a comprehensive system in place to manage state
performance in serving veterans with these grants. VETS does not effectively
communicate performance expectations to states because its goals and
measures are unclear. In addition, the agency does not have meaningful
incentives to encourage states to perform well. Furthermore, VETS is
required by law to have federal staff in every state and to conduct annual
on- site evaluations at every local office, but this monitoring is often
unproductive.
In order to oversee a program effectively, an agency must have a performance
management system that establishes clear goals for those administering the
program; however, VETS does not communicate a consistent message to states
on expected performance. In fact, the agency does not have clear goals that
it communicates to states or that it tracks with outcome data. For example,
while one agency goal is to provide highquality case management to veterans,
the agency does not have state performance measures for assessing the
quality of case management provided to veterans.
Furthermore, VETS? efforts to focus intensive services on those veterans
most in need by ?targeting? specific groups of veterans are unfocused. In
its strategic plan, the agency, for case management and intensive services,
targets disabled veterans, minority veterans, female veterans, recently
separated veterans, veterans with significant barriers to employment,
special disabled veterans, homeless veterans, veterans provided vocational
rehabilitation under the VA, and veterans who served on active duty in the
armed forces under certain circumstances. This targeting includes nearly all
veterans, and not necessarily those most in need of service. The numerous
categories of targeted veterans could result in the vast majority of
veterans being targeted for case management. A VETS official said that the
focus for service should be on veterans with the greatest needs as
determined by the individual assessments because groups targeted on a
national level do not necessarily correlate to the needs of veterans in
particular states or local areas.
Unnecessary performance measures from VETS add to the DVOP and LVER
workload, without measuring quality of service to veterans. For example,
some state and VETS officials we spoke with expressed concern about having
performance measures that specifically focus on service to Vietnam- era
veterans. These veterans make up such a small percentage of the workforce,
due in part to the fact that many are at or near retirement VETS Does Not
Adequately Manage DVOP and LVER Grants
Page 8 GAO- 02- 192T
age and may not be seeking employment, yet DVOP and LVER staff may spend
much of their time trying to identify and serve this group of veterans in
order to meet VETS? performance goals.
State officials also identified one of VETS? performance measures that
should be eliminated. VETS requires that Vietnam- era veterans, special
disabled veterans, and veterans who served on active duty under certain
circumstances are placed in jobs on the Federal Contractor Job Listing. To
do this, in addition to identifying qualified job candidates from this pool
of particular veterans, DVOP and LVER staff must monitor local federal
contractors to make sure that they are listing their job opportunities with
the one- stop centers on the Federal Contractor Job Listing and hiring these
veterans. Because the presence of federal contractors in a given state or
local area is unpredictable and is determined by the federal agencies
awarding contracts, state employment service officials said the federal
contractor measure should be eliminated. It is the responsibility of
contractors to list their job openings, and the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs is responsible for ensuring that these companies list
their jobs with state employment service offices and take affirmative action
to hire qualified veterans. Eliminating this performance measure would allow
DVOP and LVER staff members more time to focus on the employment needs of
individual veterans rather than compliance issues under the purview of
another federal agency.
For effective oversight, in addition to having clear goals, an agency must
provide incentives for meeting the goals and VETS? performance management
system lacks meaningful incentives to encourage states to perform well.
Presently, states are neither rewarded for meeting or exceeding their
performance measures, nor penalized for failing to meet these measures. If a
state fails to meet its performance measures, VETS simply requires the state
to develop a corrective action plan to address the deficiencies in that
state and there are no financial repercussions. States will not lose funding
for failing to adequately serve veterans, and an agency official noted that
taking funds away from a state would ultimately deny services to veterans.
On the other hand, VETS does not encourage fiscal compliance with the
grants, and a state can overspend DVOP or LVER funds and submit a grant
modification requesting additional funds. A VETS official suggested that if
the grants were awarded through a competitive bid process within states, the
grantees might have a greater incentive to improve services to veterans.
To provide effective oversight, an agency must also gauge the quality of
service offered by the program and monitor the programs? progress. As
Page 9 GAO- 02- 192T
prescribed by the law, VETS has federal staff in every state to monitor,
along with other duties, the DVOP and LVER grants. However, this federal
monitoring effort, which includes on- site evaluations at every local
office, is often unproductive, and state officials characterize the DVOP and
LVER grants as being ?micro- managed? by VETS. The agency?s annual on- site
evaluations of employment services offices that we observed or whose reports
we reviewed produced few substantive findings by VETS staff. Furthermore,
according to some state officials, these evaluations have little or no
effect on how DVOP and LVER staff members perform their duties.
Finally, we found multiple problems with VETS? monitoring efforts. For
example, because states generally monitor performance at one- stop centers,
including the DVOP and LVER grants, VETS? monitoring can be redundant. VETS?
requirement for annual on- site monitoring may also be unnecessary for those
offices that exceed their performance expectations. In addition, VETS?
oversight may result in confusion about the lines of authority between the
federal and state monitoring staff and the DVOP and LVER staff, who are
state employees. Also, VETS? monitoring is often inconsistent because
operational manuals are outdated, training of monitoring staff is limited,
and interpretations of the law differ among staff.
According to the state and local officials we interviewed, the DVOP and LVER
grant programs do not always operate well in one- stop centers. DVOP and
LVER programs continue to operate under a law established prior to WIA, and
states do not have the same flexibility granted under WIA to design their
services for veterans in a way that best meets the needs of employers and
veterans.
Because of statutory requirements, states cannot, in all cases, assign DVOP
and LVER staff to where the staff is most needed. For example, the law
prescribes how to assign DVOP and LVER staff to local offices and does not
give states the flexibility to move staff to locations where state and local
officials believe veterans could best be served. This restriction may result
in too many staff in some areas and too few in other areas. In addition,
because DVOP and LVER grants are separate funding streams, states have
little flexibility in staffing decisions. If a state does not spend all of
its grant money, states return the extra funding and VETS redistributes it
to states that request additional funding. A state that overspends in its
DVOP program but spends less than its allocation in the LVER program would
have to use other funds to cover the amount DVOP and LVER
Programs Could be Better Integrated in One- Stop Centers
Page 10 GAO- 02- 192T
overspent in the DVOP program, and VETS would take back the additional LVER
grant money. The state may request more money from VETS for its DVOP
program, but there is no guarantee that it will get the additional funding.
States are also constrained when it comes to deciding what DVOP and LVER
staff members do and whom they serve. The law specifies the separate duties
for DVOP and LVER staff, although we found that they generally performed
similar duties. Furthermore, DVOP and LVER staff members may not serve
certain individuals who may qualify for veteran services under other
employment and training programs. The law governing the DVOP and LVER
programs defines veterans eligible for employment assistance more narrowly
than WIA or VETS for its other veterans? activities. Because of this more
restricted definition, DVOP and LVER staff are not allowed, for example, to
serve veterans who were on active duty for 180 days or less, and they are
not permitted to serve Reservists 8 or National Guard members.
Another sign that the DVOP and LVER grants are not well integrated into the
one- stop environment is that the funding year for DVOP and LVER programs
does not coincide with the funding year for other employment programs
offered in the one- stop center system. The appropriation to fund the DVOP
and LVER grants is made available on a federal fiscal year basis- October 1
through September 30- while other employment programs and states operate on
a program year basis- July 1 through June 30. Having Labor programs? funding
streams on different schedules is burdensome for states and makes the
budgeting process more complicated.
VETS has taken a more reactive rather than proactive approach to adapting to
the one- stop system and has not taken adequate steps to adapt the DVOP and
LVER programs to the new environment. For example, instead of coordinating
with other programs to determine how best to fit the DVOP and LVER programs
into the one- stop system, VETS officials reported that they are waiting to
see how states implement their programs and will then decide how to
integrate the staff or adjust their programs. VETS has required states to
sign an agreement to ensure that veterans will continue to receive priority
services, but these agreements contained no
8 Except for Reservists who served on active duty during a period of war or
under certain other circumstances.
Page 11 GAO- 02- 192T
insightful information about how DVOP and LVER staff might serve veterans
within this new one- stop center environment.
VETS has not developed practices for operating within the one- stop system
or adequately shared innovative ways to help veterans find and retain jobs.
Because of outdated policies and procedures, DVOP and LVER staff in many
states may continue to operate separately as if they were in the old
employment services system and continue to assume duties very similar to
those they had in the old employment services system. Consequently, they
fail to adapt to the new workforce environment created by WIA. According to
one- stop managers we interviewed, this failure to adapt may diminish the
quality of services to veterans.
While the Congress has clearly defined employment service to veterans as a
national responsibility, the law has not been amended to reflect the recent
changes in the employment and training service delivery system introduced by
WIA. The prescriptive nature of the law also creates a onesize- fits- all
approach for service delivery, mandating many of the DVOP and LVER program
activities and requirements. This approach is ineffective because it does
not account for the fact that each state and one- stop center may have a
different approach to satisfying the needs of local employers as well as
different types of veterans who may need employment assistance. Although the
law stipulates separate roles and responsibilities for DVOP and LVER staff,
they perform similar duties and may not need to be separately funded. The
law that governs VETS also stipulates how grant funds and staff must be
allocated as well as how the grants should be monitored. These requirements
hamper VETS? ability to consider alternative ways of administering or
overseeing the grants. Furthermore, the law requires that VETS report
annually on states? performance for serving veterans relative to serving
nonveterans, which may not be a good indicator if a state serves its
nonveteran population poorly. The law also requires VETS to report on
requirements pertaining to the Federal Contractor Job Listing and this
detracts DVOP and LVER staff members from serving veterans.
While VETS? vision is to find innovative ways to assist veterans with
employment, it has not been proactive in helping DVOP and LVER staff become
an integral part of the one- stop center environment. The new onestop center
system, while giving veterans priority for employment services, gives states
flexibility in planning and implementing employment and training systems and
holds them accountable for performance. However, VETS has not taken steps to
adjust to this new environment. The Conclusions and
Recommendations
Page 12 GAO- 02- 192T
agency has not updated its oversight guidelines of staff training procedures
to ensure consistent and effective monitoring of the DVOP and LVER programs
within the one- stop centers. VETS has not established clear performance
goals for states, nor has it given states the flexibility to decide how best
to serve their veteran population. VETS has proposed ways of improving
performance measures, but these measures have not yet been implemented. VETS
has not proposed any incentives to hold states accountable for meeting
performance goals.
Our report recommended that the Secretary of Labor direct VETS to establish
more effective management and monitoring of the DVOP and LVER programs by
allowing states flexibility in planning how to best serve veterans, while at
the same time holding states accountable for meeting the agency?s goals and
expectations. Specifically, our report recommended that the Secretary of
Labor implement a more effective performance management system as soon as
possible and take steps to ensure that the DVOP and LVER programs are more
effectively monitored. In addition, because title 38 limits the amount of
flexibility that VETS can grant to states, we recommended that Congress
consider how the DVOP and LVER programs best fit in the current employment
and training system and take steps to ensure that these programs become more
fully integrated into this new environment. These steps may include updating
the applicable law to provide more flexibility and taking other actions such
as eliminating certain requirements and adjusting the DVOP and LVER grant
funding cycle to correspond with that of other programs. Specifically, we
suggested that the Congress consider revising title 38 to
provide states and local offices more discretion to decide where to locate
DVOP and LVER staff and provide states the discretion to have half- time
DVOP positions;
allow VETS and/ or states the flexibility to better define the roles and
responsibilities of staff serving veterans instead of including these duties
in the law;
combine the DVOP and LVER grant programs into one staffing grant to better
meet states? needs for serving veterans;
provide VETS with the flexibility to consider alternative ways to improve
administration and oversight of the staffing grants, for example,
eliminating the prescriptive requirements for monitoring DVOP and LVER
grants;
eliminate the requirement that VETS report to the Congress a comparison of
the job placement rate of veterans with that of nonveterans; and
eliminate the requirement that VETS report on Federal Contractor Job
Listings.
Page 13 GAO- 02- 192T
The Congress should also consider making the DVOP and LVER grant funding
cycle consistent with that of other employment and training programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
For further questions regarding this testimony, I can be contacted at (202)
512- 7215. Key contributors to this testimony were Joan Mahagan, Betty
Clark, and Corinna Nicolaou. GAO Contact and
Staff Acknowledgments
(130093)
*** End of document. ***