Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in VA's Training and	 
Performance Management Systems (18-SEP-08, GAO-08-1126T).	 
                                                                 
The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) disability claims	 
process has long been a subject of concern because of long waits 
for decisions and large backlogs of claims pending decisions. To 
address these issues, VA has hired almost 3,000 new claims	 
processors since January 2007. However, adequate training and	 
performance management are essential to developing highly	 
competent disability claims processors and ensuring that	 
experienced staff maintain the skills needed to issue timely,	 
accurate, and consistent decisions. The Subcommittee on 	 
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, House Veterans'	 
Affairs Committee asked GAO to present its views on 1) VA's	 
training for its claims processors and 2) VA's performance	 
management of this staff. This statement is based on a May 2008  
report on VA's training and performance management (GAO-08-561)  
and has been updated as appropriate.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1126T					        
    ACCNO:   A84283						        
  TITLE:     Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in VA's Training 
and Performance Management Systems				 
     DATE:   09/18/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Claims processing					 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employees						 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Occupational retraining				 
	     On-the-job training				 
	     Performance appraisal				 
	     Performance management				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Veterans						 
	     Veterans benefits					 
	     program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-08-1126T

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 18, 2008: 

Veterans' Benefits: 

Improvements Needed in VA's Training and Performance Management 
Systems: 

Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 

GAO-08-1126T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1126T, a testimony to Subcommittee on Disability 
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House 
of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Veterans Affairsï¿½ (VA) disability claims process has 
long been a subject of concern because of long waits for decisions and 
large backlogs of claims pending decisions. To address these issues, VA 
has hired almost 3,000 new claims processors since January 2007. 
However, adequate training and performance management are essential to 
developing highly competent disability claims processors and ensuring 
that experienced staff maintain the skills needed to issue timely, 
accurate, and consistent decisions. 

The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, House 
Veteransï¿½ Affairs Committee asked GAO to present its views on 1) VAï¿½s 
training for its claims processors and 2) VAï¿½s performance management 
of this staff. This statement is based on a May 2008 report on VAï¿½s 
training and performance management (GAO-08-561) and has been updated 
as appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

Training for VA disability claims processors complies with some 
accepted training practices, but VA does not adequately evaluate its 
training and may have opportunities to improve training design and 
implementation. VA has a highly structured, three-phase training 
program for new staff and an 80-hour annual training requirement for 
all staff. GAO found that VA has taken steps to plan this training 
strategically and that its training program for new staff appears well-
designed and conforms to adult learning principles. However, while VA 
collects some feedback on training for new staff, it does not collect 
feedback on all the training conducted at its regional offices. 
Moreover, both new and experienced staff reported problems with their 
training. Some new staff told us a computer-based learning tool is too 
theoretical and often out of date. More experienced staff said they 
struggled to meet the annual 80-hour training requirement because of 
workload pressures or could not always find courses relevant given 
their experience level. Finally, the agency does not hold claims 
processors accountable for meeting the annual training requirement. 

VAï¿½s performance management system for claims processing staff 
generally conforms to accepted practices. For example, individual 
performance measures, such as quality and productivity, are aligned 
with the agencyï¿½s organizational performance measures, and VA provides 
staff with regular performance feedback. However, the system may not 
clearly differentiate among staff performance levels. In each of the 
regional offices we visited, at least 90 percent of claims processors 
were placed in just two of five overall performance categories. Broad, 
overlapping performance categories may deprive managers of the 
information they need to reward top performers and address performance 
issues, as well as deprive staff of the feedback they need to improve. 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2007 Appraisals for Four Offices Were Concentrated 
in Two Categories: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Office: Atlanta; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 81%; 
Excellent: 10%; 
Outstanding: 9%. 

Office: Baltimore; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 66%; 
Excellent: 10%; 
Outstanding: 24%. 

Office: Milwaukee; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 70%; 
Excellent: 2%; 
Outstanding: 28%. 

Office: Portland; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 72%; 
Excellent: 2%; 
Outstanding: 26%. 

Source: VBA regional offices. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

In its May report, GAO recommended that VA collect feedback from staff 
on the training provided in the regional offices and use this feedback 
to improve training; hold staff accountable for meeting their training 
requirement; and assess, and if necessary adjust its process for 
placing staff in overall performance categories. VA concurred with 
these recommendations, but has not yet reported any significant 
progress in implementing them. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1126T]. For more 
information, contact Daniel Berton at (202) 512-7215 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on training and 
performance management for Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) 
disability claims processors. In fiscal year 2007, VA paid about $37.5 
billion in benefits to more than 3.6 million veterans and their 
families. The disability claims process has long been a subject of 
concern for VA, the Congress, and veterans' service organizations due 
to long waits for decisions, large backlogs of pending claims, and 
problems with the accuracy and consistency of decisions. Moreover, we 
have noted that VA's current disability process is in urgent need of re-
examination and transformation, especially in regard to how it assesses 
the work capacity of individuals with disabilities in today's world and 
in its ability to provide timely and appropriate benefits. With an 
increase in claims resulting from injuries sustained in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and from an aging veteran population, these issues will 
likely persist. To address them, VA added almost 3,000 new claims 
processors from January 2007 to July 2008 and has plans to add even 
more staff by the end of September 2008. Earlier this year, I testified 
before this subcommittee that enlarging VA's disability workforce is 
likely to produce certain human capital challenges for the agency. 
[Footnote 1] More staff alone will not guarantee effective disability 
claims processing. Among other things, adequate training and 
performance management are essential to developing highly competent new 
disability claims processors and ensuring that experienced staff 
maintain the skills needed to issue timely, accurate, and consistent 
disability decisions. 

My remarks today primarily draw from our May 2008 report for the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and focus on 1) VA's training for its 
disability claims processing staff and 2) its performance management 
system for claims processors. We conducted our work in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards.[Footnote 2] For this 
testimony, we updated information from our report, as appropriate, to 
reflect the current status of VA training and performance management 
systems. 

In summary, although we found that training for VA disability claims 
processors complies with some accepted training practices, it is not 
adequately evaluated, and some aspects of training design and 
implementation could be improved. We found that VA has taken steps to 
strategically plan its training, including the establishment of a 
training board to evaluate the agency's training needs. Also, VA's 
training program for new staff appears well-designed and conforms with 
adult learning principles. However, while VA collects feedback on many 
of the training methods and tools for new staff, not all the training 
VA conducts is evaluated to determine how relevant or effective it is. 
Moreover, both new and experienced staff reported problems with their 
training. Some new staff members reported that a computer-based 
learning tool was not useful. Also, VA requires 80 hours of training 
annually for all claims processors, but some experienced claims 
processors struggled to meet this requirement because of workload 
pressures, and some could not always find relevant courses. It is not 
clear what criteria VA uses to justify the number of required training 
hours. Furthermore, individual claims processors are not held 
accountable for meeting the annual training requirement, although 
according to VA, the agency has implemented a new learning management 
system allowing it to monitor staff's completion of the training 
requirement. 

VA's performance management system for claims processing staff 
generally conforms to accepted performance management practices. For 
example, individual performance measures, such as quality and 
productivity, are aligned with the agency's organizational performance 
measures, and VA provides claims processing staff with regular feedback 
on their performance. However, the system may not clearly differentiate 
among performance levels. Broad, overlapping performance categories may 
deprive managers of the information they need to reward top performers 
and address performance issues, as well as deprive staff of the 
feedback they need to improve. 

Background: 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) within VA administers the 
disability compensation and pension programs, whereby VA claims 
processing staff assess veterans' applications for disability 
compensation and pension benefits. Aside from benefits for veterans, 
VBA claims processing staff make eligibility determinations for 
deceased veterans' spouses, children, and parents. In short, they are 
responsible for ensuring that the decisions that lead to paying 
disability compensation and pension benefits are timely, accurate, and 
consistent. 

The VA disability claims process involves multiple steps and usually 
involves more than one claims processor. When a veteran submits a claim 
to one of VBA's 57 regional offices, staff in that office are 
responsible for obtaining evidence to evaluate the claim, such as 
medical and military service records; determining whether the claimant 
is eligible for benefits; and assigning a disability rating specifying 
the severity of each of the veteran's impairments. These ratings 
determine the amount of benefits eligible veterans will receive. 

VA has faced questions about the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency 
of its disability decisions. GAO designated federal disability 
programs, including VA and other programs, as a high-risk area in 2003. 
In particular, our prior work found VA relied on outmoded criteria for 
determining program eligibility that did not fully reflect advances in 
medicine and technology or changes in the labor market. As a result, 
VA's disability program may not recognize an individual's full 
potential to work. In addition, VA has seen processing times for their 
disability claims increase over the past several years, and 
inconsistencies in disability decisions across locations have raised 
questions about fairness and integrity. 

Some have suggested that VA needs to address its training and guidance 
related to claims processing in order to improve consistency and that 
it should conduct periodic evaluations of decisions to ensure the 
accuracy of ratings across disability categories and regions. VA has 
reported that some of the inconsistency in its decisions is due to 
complex claims, such as those involving post-traumatic stress disorder, 
but it has also acknowledged that the accuracy and consistency of 
claims decisions needs further improvement. 

Training Complies with Some Accepted Practices, but VBA Does Not 
Adequately Evaluate Training and May Be Falling Short in Training 
Design and Implementation: 

To prepare newly hired staff to perform the tasks associated with 
processing disability claims, VBA has developed a highly structured, 
three-phase program designed to deliver standardized training. The 
first phase is designed to lay the foundation for future training by 
introducing new staff to topics such as medical terminology and the 
computer applications used to process and track claims. The second 
provides an overview of the technical aspects of claims processing, 
including records management, how to review medical records, and how to 
interpret a medical exam. The third includes a combination of 
classroom, on-the-job, and computer-based trainings. The second and 
third phases in this program are designed to both introduce new 
material and reinforce material from the previous phase. 

To help ensure that claims processing staff continually maintain their 
knowledge after their initial training and keep up with changing 
policies and procedures, VBA's Compensation and Pension Service 
requires all claims processing staff to complete a minimum of 80 hours 
of technical training annually. This training requirement can be met 
through a mix of classroom instruction, electronic-based training from 
sources such as the Training and Performance Support System (TPSS), or 
guest lecturers. VBA's regional offices have some flexibility over what 
courses they provide to their staff to help them meet the training 
requirement. These courses can cover such topics as establishing 
veteran status, asbestos claims development, and eye-vision issues. 

We found that VBA has taken some steps to strategically plan its 
training for claims processors in accordance with generally accepted 
training practices identified in our prior work.[Footnote 3] For 
example, VBA has taken steps to align training with the agency's 
mission and goals. In 2004, VBA established an Employee Training and 
Learning Board (board) to, among other things, ensure that the agency's 
training decisions support its strategic and business plans, goals, and 
objectives. Also, VBA has identified the skills and competencies needed 
by its claims processing staff by developing a decision tree and task 
analysis of the claims process. In addition, VBA has taken steps to 
determine the appropriate level of investment in training and to 
prioritize funding. The board's responsibilities include developing an 
annual training budget and recommending training initiatives to the 
Under Secretary of Benefits. Further, we found that VBA's training 
program for new claims processing staff appears well-designed, in that 
it conforms to adult learning principles by carefully defining all 
pertinent terms and concepts and providing abundant and realistic 
examples of claims work. 

However, while VBA has developed a system to collect feedback from new 
claims processing staff on their training, the agency does not 
consistently collect feedback on all of the training it provides. For 
example, none of the regional offices we visited consistently collected 
feedback on the training they conduct. Without feedback on regional 
office training, VBA may not be aware of how effective all of its 
training tools are. 

Moreover, both new and experienced claims processing staff we 
interviewed reported some issues with their training. A number of staff 
told us the TPSS was difficult to use, often out-of-date, and too 
theoretical. Some claims processing staff with more experience reported 
that they struggled to meet the annual training requirement because of 
workload pressures or that training topics were not always relevant for 
staff with their level of experience. VBA officials reported that they 
have reviewed the 80-hour training requirement to determine if it is 
appropriate, but they could not identify the criteria or any analysis 
that were used to make this determination. Identifying the right amount 
of training is crucial. An overly burdensome training requirement may 
needlessly take staff away from essential claims processing duties, 
while too little training could contribute to processing and quality 
errors. 

In addition to lacking a clear process for assessing the 
appropriateness of the 80-hour training requirement, VBA also has no 
policy outlining consequences for individual staff who do not complete 
the requirement. Because it does not hold staff accountable, VBA is 
missing an opportunity to clearly convey to staff the importance of 
managing their time to meet training requirements, as well as 
production and accuracy goals. In fiscal year 2008, VBA implemented a 
new learning management system that allows it to track the training 
hours completed by individual staff. Although VBA now has the capacity 
to monitor staff's completion of the training requirement, the agency 
has not indicated any specific consequences for staff who fail to meet 
the requirement. 

VA's Performance Management System Generally Conforms with Accepted 
Practices, but May Not Clearly Differentiate among Staff's Performance 
Levels: 

VA's performance management system for claims processors is consistent 
with a number of accepted practices for effective performance 
management systems in the public sector.[Footnote 4] For example, the 
elements used to evaluate individual claims processors--such as 
quality, productivity, and workload management--appear to be generally 
aligned with VBA's organizational performance measures. Aligning 
individual and organizational performance measures helps staff see the 
connection between their daily work activities and their organization's 
goals and the importance of their roles and responsibilities in helping 
to achieve these goals. VA also requires supervisors to provide claims 
processors with regular feedback on their performance, and it has 
actively involved its employees and other stakeholders in developing 
its performance management system. 

However, VA's system may not be consistent with a key accepted 
practice--clear differentiation among staff performance levels. We have 
previously reported that, in order to provide meaningful distinctions 
in performance for experienced staff, agencies should preferably use 
rating systems with four or five performance categories.[Footnote 5] If 
staff members' ratings are concentrated in just one or two of multiple 
categories, the system may not be making meaningful distinctions in 
performance. Systems that do not make meaningful distinctions in 
performance fail to give (1) employees the constructive feedback they 
need to improve and (2) managers the information they need to reward 
top performers and address performance issues. 

VA's performance appraisal system has the potential to clearly 
differentiate among staff performance levels. Each fiscal year, 
regional offices give their staff a rating on each individual 
performance element: exceptional, fully successful, or less than fully 
successful. For example, a staff member might be rated exceptional on 
quality, fully successful on productivity, and so forth. Some elements 
are considered critical elements, and some are considered noncritical. 
Staff members are then assigned to one of five overall performance 
categories, ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding, based on a 
formula that converts a staff member's combination of ratings on the 
individual performance elements into an overall performance category 
(see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: VA Overall Performance Appraisal Formula: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the VA Overall Performance Appraisal 
Formula, as follows: 

Ratings on critical elements: All exceptionals; and: 
Ratings on noncritical elements: All exceptionals; yields: 
Overall performance category: Outstanding. 

Ratings on critical elements: All exceptionals; and: 
Ratings on noncritical elements: One or more fully successful(s), all 
others exceptional(s); yields: 
Overall performance category: Excellent. 

Ratings on critical elements: One or more fully successful(s), all 
others exceptionals; and: 
Ratings on noncritical elements: All fully successfuls or exceptionals; 
yields: 
Overall performance category: Fully successful. 

Ratings on critical elements: All fully successfuls or exceptionals; 
and: 
Ratings on noncritical elements: One or more less than fully 
successful(s); yields: 
Overall performance category: Minimally satisfactory. 

Ratings on critical elements: One or more less than fully 
successful(s); 
Ratings on noncritical elements: [Blank]; yields: 
Overall performance category: Unsatisfactory. 

Source: GAO analysis of VBA information. 

[End of figure] 

However, there is evidence to suggest that the performance management 
system for claims processing staff may not clearly or accurately 
differentiate among staff's performance. Central office officials and 
managers in two of the four regional offices we visited said that, 
under the formula for assigning overall performance categories, it is 
more difficult to place staff in certain overall performance categories 
than in others--even if staff's performance truly does fall within that 
category. These managers said it is especially difficult for staff to 
be placed in the excellent category. In fact, at least 90 percent of 
all claims processors in the regional offices we visited ended up in 
only two of the five performance categories in fiscal year 2007: fully 
successful and outstanding (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Overall Performance Ratings for Claims 
Processors in Four Regional Offices Were Concentrated in the 
Outstanding and Fully Successful Categories: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Office: Atlanta; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 81%; 
Excellent: 10%; 
Outstanding: 9%. 

Office: Baltimore; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 66%; 
Excellent: 10%; 
Outstanding: 24%. 

Office: Milwaukee; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 70%; 
Excellent: 2%; 
Outstanding: 28%. 

Office: Portland; 
Unsatisfactory: 0; 
Minimally satisfactory: 0; 
Fully successful: 72%; 
Excellent: 2%; 
Outstanding: 26%. 

Source: VBA regional offices. 

[End of figure] 

Some managers told us that there are staff whose performance is better 
than fully successful but not quite outstanding, but that under VA's 
formula, it is difficult for these staff to be placed in the excellent 
category. To be placed in the excellent category, a staff member must 
be rated exceptional in all the critical elements and fully successful 
in at least one noncritical element. However, managers told us that 
virtually all staff who are exceptional in the critical elements are 
also exceptional in the noncritical elements, and they are 
appropriately placed in the outstanding category. On the other hand, if 
a staff member is rated fully successful on just one critical element, 
even if all other elements are rated as exceptional, the staff member's 
overall performance category falls from outstanding to fully 
successful. 

Neither VBA nor VA central office officials have examined the 
distribution of claims processing staff across the five overall 
performance categories. However, VA has acknowledged that there may be 
an issue with its formula, and the agency is considering changes to its 
performance management system designed to allow for greater 
differentiation in performance. Absent additional examination of the 
distribution of claims processors among overall performance categories, 
VA lacks a clear picture of whether its system is working as intended 
and whether any adjustments are needed. 

In conclusion, VA appears to have recognized the importance of 
developing and maintaining high performing claims processors. It needs 
to devote more attention, however, to ensuring that its training and 
performance management systems are better aligned to equip both new and 
experienced staff to handle a burgeoning workload. Specifically, in our 
May 2008 report, we recommended that VA should collect feedback from 
staff on training provided in the regional offices in order to assess 
issues such as the appropriateness of the 80-hour annual training 
requirement and the usefulness of TPSS. We also recommended that the 
agency should use information from its new learning management system 
to hold staff members accountable for meeting the training requirement. 
In addition, we recommended that VA should assess whether its 
performance management system is making meaningful distinctions in 
performance. In its comments on our May 2008 report, VA concurred with 
our recommendations, but it has not yet reported making any significant 
progress in implementing them. 

While hiring, training, and evaluating the performance of staff is 
essential, commensurate attention should be focused on reviewing and 
aligning disability benefits and service outcomes to today's world. In 
prior work, we have noted that VA and other federal disability programs 
must adopt a more modern understanding of how technology and labor 
market changes determine an individual's eligibility for benefits, as 
well as the timing and portfolio of support services they are provided. 
To the extent progress is made in this area, effective training and 
performance management systems will be of crucial importance. Moreover, 
the way VA's larger workforce is distributed and aligned nationwide can 
also significantly impact the degree to which it succeeds in meeting 
the agency's responsibilities to veterans in the future. In short, VA 
should seize this opportunity to think more strategically about where 
to best deploy its new staff and how to develop and maintain their 
skills. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any 
questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For further information, please contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512- 
7215 or [email protected]. Also contributing to this statement were 
Clarita Mrena, Lorin Obler, David Forgosh, and Susan Bernstein. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Veterans' Benefits: Improved Management Would Enhance VA's Pension 
Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-112]. 
Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2008. 

Veterans' Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Challenges Persist, 
while VA Continues to Take Steps to Address Them. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-473T]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 14, 2008. 

Disabled Veterans' Employment: Additional Planning, Monitoring, and 
Data Collection Efforts Would Improve Assistance. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1020]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 12, 2007. 

Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in the Reporting and Use of 
Data on the Accuracy of Disability Claims Decisions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1045]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 30, 2003. 

Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 
Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-893G]. Washington, D.C.: July 2003. 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 
Performance and Organizational Success. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488]. Washington D.C.: March 
14, 2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans 
Affairs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-110]. 
Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003. 

Veterans' Benefits: Claims Processing Timeliness Performance Measures 
Could Be Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-
282]. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2002. 

Veterans' Benefits: Quality Assurance for Disability Claims and Appeals 
Processing Can Be Further Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-806]. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 2002. 

Veterans' Benefits: Training for Claims Processors Needs Evaluation. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-601]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 31, 2001. 

Veterans Benefits Claims: Further Improvements Needed in Claims- 
Processing Accuracy. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-99-35]. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 1999. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Veterans' Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Challenges 
Persist, While VA Continues to Take Steps to Address Them, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-473T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
14, 2008). 

[2] GAO, Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and 
Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for 
Claims Processors, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-
561] (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2008). 

[3] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2004). 

[4] GAO, Results Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
14, 2003). 

[5] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on the 
Administration's Draft Proposed "Working for America Act," [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-142T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
5, 2005). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***