Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and		 
Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management 
for Claims Processors (27-MAY-08, GAO-08-561).			 
                                                                 
Faced with an increase in disability claims, the Veterans	 
Benefits Administration (VBA) is hiring a large number of new	 
claims processing staff. We were asked to determine: (1) What	 
training is provided to new and experienced claims processors and
how uniform is this training? (2) To what extent has VBA planned 
this training strategically, and how well is the training	 
designed, implemented, and evaluated? and (3) To what extent is  
the performance management system for claims processors 	 
consistent with generally accepted practices? To answer the	 
questions, GAO reviewed documents including VBA policies and	 
training curricula; interviewed VBA central office officials;	 
visited 4 of VBA's 57 regional offices, which were selected to	 
achieve diversity in geographic location, number of staff, and	 
officewide accuracy in claims processing; and compared VBA's	 
training and performance management to generally accepted	 
practices identified by GAO.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-561 					        
    ACCNO:   A82192						        
  TITLE:     Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and    
Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management 
for Claims Processors						 
     DATE:   05/27/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Claims processing					 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employees						 
	     Human capital management				 
	     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-08-561

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-561 
entitled 'Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and 
Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for 
Claims Processors' which was released on May 27, 2008.

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. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

May 2008: 

Veterans' Benefits: 

Increased Focus on Evaluation and Accountability Would Enhance Training 
and Performance Management for Claims Processors: 

GAO-08-561: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-561, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Faced with an increase in disability claims, the Veterans Benefits 
Administration (VBA) is hiring a large number of new claims processing 
staff. We were asked to determine: (1) What training is provided to new 
and experienced claims processors and how uniform is this training? (2) 
To what extent has VBA planned this training strategically, and how 
well is the training designed, implemented, and evaluated? and (3) To 
what extent is the performance management system for claims processors 
consistent with generally accepted practices? To answer the questions, 
GAO reviewed documents including VBA policies and training curricula; 
interviewed VBA central office officials; visited 4 of VBAï¿½s 57 
regional offices, which were selected to achieve diversity in 
geographic location, number of staff, and officewide accuracy in claims 
processing; and compared VBAï¿½s training and performance management to 
generally accepted practices identified by GAO. 

What GAO Found: 

VBA has a standardized training curriculum for new staff and a training 
requirement for all staff, but does not hold staff accountable for 
meeting this requirement. The curriculum for new staff includes what is 
referred to as centralized training and training at their home offices. 
All claims processors must complete 80 hours of training annually, 
which may cover a mix of topics identified centrally and by regional 
offices. Individual staff members face no consequences for failing to 
meet the training requirement, however, and VBA has not tracked 
training completion by individuals. It is implementing a new system 
that should provide this capacity. 

Although VBA has taken steps to plan its training strategically, the 
agency does not adequately evaluate training and may be falling short 
in training design and implementation. VBA has a training board that 
assesses its overall training needs. However, the agency does not 
consistently collect feedback on regional office training, and both new 
and experienced staff GAO interviewed raised issues with their 
training. Some new staff raised concerns about the consistency of 
training provided by different instructors and about the usefulness of 
an on-line learning tool. Some experienced staff believe that 80 hours 
of training annually is not necessary, some training was not relevant 
for them, and workload pressures impede training. 

The performance management system for claims processors generally 
conforms to GAO-identified key practices, but the formula for assigning 
overall ratings may prevent managers from fully acknowledging and 
rewarding staff for higher levels of performance. The system aligns 
individual and organizational performance measures and requires that 
staff be given feedback throughout the year. However, VBA officials 
raised concerns about the formula used to assign overall ratings. 
Almost all staff in the offices GAO visited were placed in only two of 
five overall rating categories, although managers said greater 
differentiation would more accurately reflect actual performance 
differences. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has not examined 
the ratings distribution, but acknowledges a potential issue with its 
formula and is considering changes. 

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

[See 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:
 
GAO is recommending that VBA collect feedback on training provided by 
regional offices and use this feedback to further improve training, and 
hold staff accountable for meeting their training requirement. GAO also 
recommends that the VA assess and, if necessary, adjust its process for 
placing staff in overall performance categories. In its comments, VA 
agreed with GAOï¿½s conclusions and concurred with the recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-561]. For more 
information, contact Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-7215 [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

VBA Has a Uniform Training Curriculum for New Claims Processors and an 
Annual Training Requirement for All Claims Processors, but Staff Are 
Not Held Accountable for Meeting This Requirement: 

VBA Is Taking Steps to Strategically Plan Its Training for Staff, but 
Does Not Adequately Evaluate Training and May Be Falling Short in 
Design and Implementation: 

Performance Management System for Claims Processors Generally Conforms 
to Accepted Practices, but May Not Clearly Differentiate between 
Performance Levels: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2007 Core Technical Training Requirements for 
VSRs and RVSRs: 

Appendix III: Excerpts from Fiscal Year 2007 Training Plans for Four 
Regional Offices: 

Appendix IV: Agency Comments: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: VBA's Disability Compensation and Pension Service's Claims 
Processing Teams: 

Table 2: Individual Performance Elements for VSRs and RVSRs: 

Table 3: Performance Elements for VSRs and RVSRs and Corresponding 
Organizational Performance Measures for VBA: 

Table 4: Selected Key Questions to Consider in Assessing Agency's 
Training Program: 

Table 5: Selected Accepted Practices for Effective Performance 
Management Systems: 

Table 6: Excerpt from Atlanta Regional Office Training Plan: 

Table 7: Excerpt from Baltimore Regional Office Training Plan: 

Table 8: Excerpt from Milwaukee Regional Office Training Plan: 

Table 9: Excerpt from Portland Regional Office Training Plan: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Phases of Training for New VSRs and RVSRs: 

Figure 2: Excerpt from the Instructor's Guide for a Centralized 
Training Lesson on Reference Materials: 

Figure 3: Most Fiscal Year 2007 Training Hours Completed by Claims 
Processors in the Offices We Visited Were in the Form of Classroom 
Instruction: 

Figure 4: Sample of VBA's Centralized Training Evaluation Form: 

Figure 5: VA Overall Performance Appraisal Formula: 

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2007 Overall Performance Ratings for Claims 
Processors in Four Regional Offices Were Concentrated in the 
Outstanding and Fully Successful Categories: 

Figure 7: Regional Offices Selected for Site Visits: 

Figure 8: Four Components of the Training and Development Process: 

Abbreviations: 

RVSR: Rating Veterans Service Representative: 

STAR: Systematic Technical Accuracy Review: 

TPSS: Training and Performance Support System: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

VBA: Veterans Benefits Administration: 

VSR: Veterans Service Representative: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: 

May 27, 2008: 

The Honorable Bob Filner: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is facing an increased 
volume of claims for disability benefits related to the current 
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the aging of veterans from 
past conflicts. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2006, the number of 
disability-related claims filed annually with VBA increased by almost 
40 percent. As a result, VBA continues to experience challenges in 
processing veterans' disability claims. As of fiscal year 2007, VBA had 
approximately 392,000 disability claims pending benefit decisions, and 
the average time these claims were pending was 132 days. According to 
VBA, the current conflicts have also produced more claims related to 
post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, conditions 
few VBA staff have had much experience evaluating. To process the 
increased volume of claims, in fiscal year 2007 the agency began hiring 
a large number of new Veterans Service Representatives (VSR), who 
collect evidence related to veterans' claims, and Rating Veterans 
Service Representatives (RVSR), who evaluate claims and determine 
benefit eligibility. It plans to add 3,100 new claims-processing staff 
by the end of fiscal year 2008. 

Given the increased volume of claims, the increased focus on certain 
types of disabilities, and the large number of new hires, training and 
performance management systems for VSRs and RVSRs now play an 
especially critical role in enabling VBA to meet its organizational 
claims processing goals for accuracy and productivity. Training that is 
properly designed and implemented is vital both to help new staff learn 
their jobs and experienced staff to update their knowledge and learn 
about emerging issues. An effective performance management system would 
also help VBA manage its staff on a day-to-day basis to achieve its 
organizational goals. To provide Congress with information on the 
training and performance management of claims processors, we were asked 
to determine: (1) What training is provided to new and experienced 
claims processors and how uniform is this training? (2) To what extent 
has VBA developed a strategic approach to planning training for claims 
processors and how well is their training designed, implemented, and 
evaluated? And (3) To what extent is the performance management system 
for claims processors consistent with generally accepted performance 
management practices in the public sector? 

To address these objectives, we collected documents and data from VBA 
central office and interviewed central office staff. In addition, GAO 
experts on training reviewed VBA documents related to training 
curriculum, lesson plans, and course evaluations. We conducted site 
visits to 4 of VBA's 57 regional offices--Atlanta, Baltimore, 
Milwaukee, and Portland, Oregon. These offices were selected to achieve 
diversity in geographical location, number of staff, and officewide 
accuracy in claims processing. While we examined VBA-wide policies and 
requirements, we primarily assessed how the training and performance 
management systems are implemented at four sites. Therefore, our 
results may not be representative of how these systems are implemented 
across all regional offices. We assessed VBA's training and performance 
management practices by comparing them to certain generally accepted 
practices for federal agencies in these areas that have been identified 
by GAO.[Footnote 1] We conducted this performance audit from September 
2007 through May 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
(See app. I for more detailed information on our objectives, scope, and 
methodology.) 

Results in Brief: 

VBA has a standard training curriculum for new claims processors and an 
80-hour annual training requirement for all claims processors, but 
staff are not held accountable for meeting this requirement. VBA's 
three-stage training program for new staff is intended to deliver 
training in a consistent manner. First, VBA policy states that new 
staff are required to complete some orientation training, which is 
provided in their home offices. Second, they are required to attend a 3-
week standardized training session, referred to as centralized 
training, that provides a basic introduction to their job 
responsibilities. Third, new staff are required to spend several more 
months in training at their home offices, which is supposed to include 
on-the-job training, instructor-led training classes that follow a 
required curriculum, and use of an on-line learning tool called the 
Training and Performance Support System. VBA policy states that all 
claims processors are required to complete a minimum of 80 hours of 
training annually, and regional offices have some discretion over what 
training they provide to meet this requirement. At least 60 hours must 
be selected from a list of core topics identified by VBA central 
office. Regional offices may choose the topics for the remaining 20 
hours based on local needs, such as to prevent errors identified in 
processing claims. Each regional office develops an annual training 
plan listing the courses needed, and VBA central office periodically 
reviews these plans and provides feedback to regional offices. Although 
VBA has a training requirement for VSRs and RVSRs, it does not have a 
policy outlining consequences for individual staff who do not complete 
their required training. Further, VBA does not maintain data on the 
training completed by individuals, but agency officials said they are 
currently implementing a new, on-line learning management system that 
should enable them to do so in the future. 

VBA is taking steps to strategically plan its training, but does not 
adequately evaluate its training and may be falling short in some areas 
of training design and implementation. VBA appears to have followed 
several accepted practices in planning its training, including the 
establishment of a training board that assesses VBA's overall training 
needs and makes recommendations to the Undersecretary for Benefits. 
Also, VBA makes some effort to evaluate its centralized training for 
new staff, soliciting feedback from students with forms that are well- 
constructed and well-balanced. However, VBA does not require regional 
offices to collect feedback on any of the training they provide to new 
and experienced staff. In fact, claims processors we interviewed raised 
some issues with the training they received. For example, some new 
staff reported that different instructors in centralized training 
sessions sometimes taught different ways of performing the same 
procedure, and that one of VBA's on-line learning tools--the Training 
and Performance Support System--is too theoretical and often out-of- 
date. More experienced staff had mixed opinions as to whether 80 hours 
of training annually is appropriate for all staff. Also, many 
experienced staff indicated that training topics are redundant from 
year to year, and some told us that courses available to them are not 
always relevant for their position or experience level because they are 
often adapted from courses for new staff. Some staff said they struggle 
to meet the annual 80-hour training requirement because of workload 
pressures. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs' performance management system for 
VSRs and RVSRs generally conforms to accepted practices, including 
aligning individual and organizational performance measures, but the 
system may not clearly differentiate among staff's overall performance 
levels. Several elements of VSRs' and RVSRs' performance are evaluated, 
and these elements are generally aligned with VBA's organizational 
performance measures. For example, VSRs and RVSRs are evaluated on 
their accuracy in claims processing, and one of VBA's organizational 
performance measures is accuracy in claims processing. VBA's 
performance management system is also consistent with other accepted 
practices, such as providing performance feedback throughout the year 
and emphasizing collaboration. However, the system may not clearly and 
accurately differentiate among the overall performance levels of VSRs 
and RVSRs. A VA-wide formula is used to translate an employee's ratings 
on all individual elements into one of five overall rating categories. 
Several VBA central and regional office managers raised concerns with 
this formula, saying that it is difficult for staff to be placed in 
certain overall performance categories, even if staff's performance 
truly does fall within one of those categories. In fact, when we 
reviewed the results of VSR and RVSR appraisals at the regional offices 
we visited, almost all staff were placed in either the outstanding 
(highest) or fully successful (middle) categories. To the extent that 
the performance appraisals do not make meaningful distinctions in 
performance, staff may lack the constructive feedback they need to 
improve, and managers may lack the information they need to reward top 
performers and address performance issues. Although VA acknowledged 
this issue and indicated that it is considering changes to the system, 
no formal actions have been taken to date. 

We are recommending that VBA central office collect feedback on 
training provided by the regional offices, to determine whether (1) 80 
hours is the appropriate amount of annual training for all staff, (2) 
regional offices are providing training that is relevant for all staff, 
and (3) whether any changes are needed to improve the Training and 
Performance Support System. We are also recommending that VBA central 
office hold individual staff accountable for meeting their training 
requirement and that VA assess and, if necessary, adjust its 
performance rating system for staff to make it a more meaningful 
management tool. In its comments, VA agreed with our conclusions and 
concurred with our recommendations. 

Background: 

In fiscal year 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid about 
$37.5 billion in disability compensation and pension benefits to more 
than 3.6 million veterans and their families. Through its disability 
compensation program, the VBA pays monthly benefits to veterans with 
service-connected disabilities (injuries or diseases incurred or 
aggravated while on active military duty). Monthly benefit amounts vary 
according to the severity of the disability. Through its pension 
benefit program, VBA pays monthly benefits to wartime veterans with low 
incomes who are either elderly or permanently and totally disabled for 
reasons not service-connected. In addition, VBA pays dependency and 
indemnity compensation to some deceased veterans' spouses, children, 
and parents and to survivors of servicemembers who died while on active 
duty. 

When a veteran submits a benefits claim to any of VBA's 57 regional 
offices, a Veterans Service Representative (VSR) is responsible for 
obtaining the relevant evidence to evaluate the claim. For disability 
compensation benefits, such evidence includes veterans' military 
service records, medical examinations, and treatment records from VA 
medical facilities and private providers. Once a claim is developed 
(i.e., has all the necessary evidence), a Rating Veterans Service 
Representative (RVSR) evaluates the claim, determines whether the 
claimant is eligible for benefits, and assigns a disability rating 
based on degree of impairment. The rating determines the amount of 
benefits the veteran will receive. For the pension program, claims 
processing staff review the veteran's military, financial, and other 
records to determine eligibility. Eligible veterans receive monthly 
pension benefit payments based on the difference between their 
countable income, as determined by VA, and the maximum pension amounts 
as updated annually by statute.[Footnote 2] In fiscal year 2007, VBA 
employed over 4,100 VSRs and about 1,800 RVSRs to administer the 
disability compensation and pension programs' caseload of almost 3.8 
million claims. 

In 2001 the VA Claims Processing Task Force noted that VSRs were 
responsible for understanding almost 11,000 separate benefit delivery 
tasks, such as tasks in claims establishment, claims development, 
public contacts, and appeals. To improve VBA's workload controls, 
accuracy rates, and timeliness, the Task Force recommended that VA 
divide these tasks among a number of claims processing teams with 
defined functions. To that end, in fiscal year 2002, VBA developed the 
Claims Processing Improvement model that created six claims processing 
teams, based on phases of the claims process. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: VBAï¿½s Disability Compensation and Pension Serviceï¿½s Claims 
Processing Teams: 

Team: Triage Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Establishes the regional office's 
tracking procedures for all mail as well as processes claims that only 
require a brief review to determine eligibility. 

Team: Pre-Determination Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Develops evidence for disability 
ratings and prepares administrative decisions. 

Team: Rating Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Makes decisions on claims that 
require consideration of medical evidence. 

Team: Post-Determination Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Develops evidence for non-rating 
issues, processes benefit awards, and notifies veterans of rating 
decisions. 

Team: Public Contact Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Conducts personal interviews and 
handles telephone inquiries, including calls from veterans. 

Team: Appeals Team; 
Summary of claims processing duties: Handles requests for 
reconsideration of claims where veterans have formally disagreed with 
claim decisions. 

Source: VBA. 

Note: The Rating Board is made up of RVSRs, the Post-Determination and 
Public Contact teams are made up of VSRs, and the Pre-Determination, 
Triage, and Appeals teams are made up of both RVSRs and VSRs. 

[End of table] 

According to one VA official, new claims processing staff generally 
begin as VSRs and typically have a probationary period of about one 
year.[Footnote 3] After their probationary period ends, staff can 
either continue to qualify to become senior VSRs or apply for RVSR 
positions.[Footnote 4] VSRs are also given the option to rotate to 
other VSR claim teams to gain a broader understanding of the claims 
process. 

VBA Has a Uniform Training Curriculum for New Claims Processors and an 
Annual Training Requirement for All Claims Processors, but Staff Are 
Not Held Accountable for Meeting This Requirement: 

VBA has established a standardized curriculum for training new VSRs and 
RVSRs on how to process claims, and it has an 80-hour annual training 
requirement for both new and experienced staff; however, it does not 
hold individual staff accountable for meeting this requirement. VBA has 
designed a uniform curriculum for training new VSRs and RVSRs that is 
implemented in three phases--initial orientation training, a 3-week 
training session referred to as centralized training, and comprehensive 
on-the-job and classroom training after centralizing training. It also 
requires all staff to meet an annual 80-hour training requirement. To 
ensure that staff meet this requirement, each regional office must 
develop an annual training plan, which can contain a mix of training 
topics identified by VBA central office and by the regional office. 
However, individual staff members are not held accountable for meeting 
their training requirement. 

Training for New Staff Is Conducted in Three Stages Using a Uniform 
Curriculum: 

VBA has a highly structured, three-phased program for all new claims 
processors designed to deliver standardized training, regardless of 
training location or individual instructors. (See fig. 1.) For example, 
each topic included in this training program contains a detailed lesson 
plan with review exercises, student handouts, and copies of slides used 
during the instructor's presentation. Each phase in this program is 
designed to both introduce new material and reinforce material from the 
previous phase, according to a VBA official. 

Figure 1: Phases of Training for New VSRs and RVSRs: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the phases of training for new VSRs 
and RVSRs, as follows: 

Phase I: Prerequisite Training; 
* Objective: Lays foundation for future training; 
* Location: Home office; 
* Duration: 2-3 weeks. 

Phase II: Centralized Training; 
* Objective: Provides overview of VSR and RVSR claims processing tasks; 
* Location: A regional office or Veterans Benefits Academy, Baltimore, 
MD; 
* Duration: 3 weeks. 

Phase III: Additional Training; 
* Objective: Provides hands-on experience and builds on previous 
training; 
* Location: Home office; 
* Duration: 6-12 months. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

According to VBA policy, the first phase of training for new VSRs and 
RVSRs is prerequisite training. New VSRs and RVSRs begin prerequisite 
training at their home regional office as soon as they begin working. 
Prerequisite training lays the foundation for future training by 
introducing new VSRs to topics such as the software applications used 
to process and track claims, medical terminology, the system for 
maintaining and filing a case folder, and the process for requesting 
medical records. Although VBA specifies the topics that must be covered 
during prerequisite training, regional offices can choose the format 
for the training and the time frame. New VSRs and RVSRs typically spend 
2 to 3 weeks completing prerequisite training in their home office 
before they begin the second program phase, centralized training. 

During what is referred to as centralized training, new VSRs and RVSRs 
spend 3 weeks in intensive classroom training. Participants from 
multiple regional offices are typically brought together in centralized 
training sessions, which may occur at their home regional office, 
another regional office, or the Veterans Benefits Academy in Baltimore, 
Maryland. According to VBA officials in three of the four offices we 
visited, bringing together VSRs and RVSRS from different regional 
offices helps to promote networking opportunities, while VBA officials 
from two of these offices also stated that it provides a nationwide 
perspective on VBA. Centralized training provides an overview of the 
technical aspects of the VSR and RVSR positions. Training instructors 
should follow the prescribed schedule and curriculum dictating when and 
how material is taught. For example, for a particular topic, the 
instructor's guide explains the length of the lesson, the instructional 
method, and the materials required; lays out the information that must 
be covered; and provides exercises to review the material. (See fig. 2 
for a sample of an instructor's guide from the centralized training 
curriculum.) Centralized training classes have at least three 
instructors, but the actual number can vary depending on the size of 
the group. VBA's goal is to maintain a minimum ratio of instructors to 
students. 

Figure 2: Excerpt from the Instructorï¿½s Guide for a Centralized 
Training Lesson on Reference Materials: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure contains the following excerpts: 

Excerpt 1: Teaching guide for instructors, page 1: 

Reference Materials Lesson Plan: 

Identifying and Accessing VA Laws, Regulations, and Procedural 
Directives: 

Prerequisite Training: Prior to this training, the trainee must have 
completed the Tour of the C&P Website lesson. 

Purpose of Lesson: Introduce trainees to VSR reference materials 
(including VA laws, regulation, manuals and directives), as well as the 
tools for accessing those references (including WARMS and the Internet) 
so that by the end of the lesson they will be able to: 

* Competently discuss the importance of developing a good working 
knowledge of the manuals and CFRs; 

* Correctly list the main topics found in M21-1, Parts 1 through 7, and 
the Manual Rewrite; 

* Properly cite a reference under 38 CFR, M21-1 and M21-1MR; 

* Demonstrate WARMS system skills, including opening the application, 
selecting an index, performing a subject search, and retrieving 
reference documents; 

* Demonstrate reference retrieval skills using both WARMS and the 
Publications page on the C&P Intranet to successfully complete the 
practical exercises in the student handouts. 

Time required: 8 hours. 

Instructional Method: Lectures, participatory discussion, instructor 
demonstration, and group practical exercise. 

Materials/Training Aids: 
* Computers with Intranet access for all students; 
* Reference Materials Trainee Handout; 
* Reference Materials PowerPoint presentation. 

Instructor: Print trainee handout (from the website) prior to class. 

Excerpt 2: Page 9: 

Except of the Reference Materials Lesson Plan. 

Source: VBA. 

[End of figure] 

The first week of centralized training for VSRs focuses on key 
concepts, such as security, privacy and records management; 
terminology; and job tools, such as the policy manual and software 
applications. The final 2 weeks of training focus on the different 
roles and responsibilities of VSRs on the Pre-determination and Post- 
determination teams in processing claims. To practice processing 
different types of claims and processing claims from start to finish, 
VSRs work on either real claims or hypothetical claims specifically 
designed for training. Centralized training for new RVSRs--many of whom 
have been promoted from the VSR position--focuses on topics such as 
systems of the human body, how to review medical records, and how to 
interpret a medical exam. According to staff in one site we visited, 
RVSRs new to VBA also take VSR centralized training or its equivalent 
to learn the overall procedures for processing claims. 

To accommodate the influx of new staff it must train, in fiscal year 
2007 VBA substantially increased the frequency of centralized training 
and is increasing student capacity at the Veterans Benefits Academy. 
During fiscal year 2007, VBA held 67 centralized training sessions for 
1,458 new VSRs and RVSRs. Centralized training sessions were conducted 
at 26 different regional offices during fiscal year 2007, in addition 
to the Veterans Benefits Academy. By comparison, during fiscal year 
2006, VBA held 27 centralized training sessions for 678 new claims 
processors. 

To implement centralized training, VBA relies on qualified regional 
office staff who have received training on how to be an instructor. 
According to VBA officials, centralized training instructors may be 
Senior VSRs, RVSRs, supervisors, or other staff identified by regional 
office managers as having the capability and the right personality to 
be effective instructors. Potential instructors have certain training 
requirements. First, they must complete the week-long Instructor 
Development Course, which covers the ways different adults learn, the 
process for developing lesson plans, and the use of different training 
methods and media. During this course, participants are videotaped and 
given feedback on their presentation style. In addition, each time 
instructors teach a centralized training session, they are supposed to 
take the 2.5 day Challenge Curriculum Course, designed to update 
instructors on changes to the curriculum and general training issues. 
Between October 2006 and February 2008, about 250 VSRs and RVSRs from 
regional offices completed the Instructor Development Course, and VBA 
officials reported that, given the influx of new VSRs and RVSRs, they 
are increasing the number of times this course is offered in order to 
train more instructors. Instructors can teach centralized training 
sessions in their home office, another regional office, or the Veterans 
Benefits Academy.[Footnote 5] 

When new VSRs and RVSRs return to their home office after centralized 
training, they are required to begin their third phase of training, 
which is supposed to include on-the-job, classroom, and computer-based 
training, all conducted by and at their regional office. In the 
regional offices we visited, managers indicated that new VSRs and RVSRs 
typically take about 6 to 12 months after they return from centralized 
training to complete all the training requirements for new staff. 
During this final phase, new claims processing staff cover more 
advanced topics, building on what they learned in centralized training. 
Under the supervision of experienced claims processors, they work on 
increasingly complex types of real claims. On-the-job training is 
supplemented in the offices we visited by regular classroom training 
that follows a required curriculum of courses developed by VBA's 
Compensation and Pension Service, specifically for new VSRs and RVSRs. 
For example, new VSRs might complete a class in processing burial 
claims and then spend time actually processing such claims. The amount 
of time spent working on each type of claim varies from a couple of 
days to a few weeks, depending on the complexity of the claim. On-the- 
job training is also supposed to be supplemented with modules from the 
Training and Performance Support System (TPSS), an interactive on-line 
system that can be used by staff individually or in a group.[Footnote 
6] TPSS modules provide detailed lessons, practice cases, and tests for 
VSRs and RVSRs. Modules for new VSRs cover topics such as burial 
benefits and medical terminology; RVSR modules cover topics such as the 
musculoskeletal system, general medical terminology, and introduction 
to post-traumatic stress disorder. 

New and Experienced Staff Have an Annual Training Requirement, and 
Regional Offices Develop Training Plans That Cover a Mix of Topics 
Identified Centrally and Locally: 

A policy established by VBA's Compensation and Pension Service requires 
both new and experienced VSRs and RVSRs to complete a minimum of 80 
hours of technical training annually, double the number VBA requires of 
its employees in other technical positions.[Footnote 7] VBA officials 
said this higher training requirement for VSRs and RVSRs is justified 
because their jobs are particularly complex and they must work with 
constantly changing policies and procedures. 

The 80-hour training requirement has two parts. At least 60 hours must 
come from a list of core technical training topics identified by the 
central office of the Compensation and Pension Service. For example, 
core topics for VSRs in fiscal year 2007 included establishing veteran 
status and asbestos claims development; topics for RVSRs included due 
process provisions and eye-vision issues. VBA specifies more core 
topics than are necessary to meet the 60-hour requirement, so regional 
offices can choose those topics most relevant to their needs. They can 
also choose the training method used to address each topic, such as 
classroom or TPSS training. (See app. II for the list of core technical 
training topics for fiscal year 2007.) Regional offices determine the 
training topics that are used to meet the remaining 20 hours, based on 
local needs and input. Regional offices may select topics from the list 
of core technical training topics or identify other topics on their 
own. 

The four regional offices we visited varied in the extent to which they 
utilized their discretion to choose topics outside the core technical 
training topics in fiscal year 2007. Two sites selected the required 60 
hours of training from the core requirements and identified their own 
topics for the remaining 20 hours. In the other two sites, almost all 
the training provided to staff in fiscal year 2007 was based on topics 
from the list of core requirements. An official in one regional office, 
for example, said that his office used its full 20 hours to provide 
training on new and emerging issues that are not covered by the core 
technical training topics, as well as training to address error prone 
areas. An official in another regional office said the core 
requirements satisfied staff training needs in fiscal year 2007, 
possibly because this regional office had a large proportion of new 
staff and the core topics are focused on the needs of new staff. 

Regional offices must develop training plans each year that indicate 
which courses will actually be provided to staff to enable them to meet 
the 80-hour training requirement. The training plan is a list of 
courses that the regional office plans to offer throughout the year, as 
well as the expected length and number and types of participants in 
each course. In the regional offices we visited, when managers develop 
their training plans, they solicit input from supervisors of VSRs and 
RVSRs and typically also consider national or local error trend data. 
Regional offices must submit their plans to the VBA central office at 
the beginning of each fiscal year for review and feedback. Central 
office officials review the plans to determine whether (1) the regional 
office will deliver at least 60 hours of training on the required core 
topics, (2) the additional topics identified by the regional office are 
appropriate, and (3) staff in similar positions within an office 
receive the same level and type of training. According to central 
office officials, they provide feedback to the regional offices on 
their current plans as well as guidance on what topics to include in 
the next year's training plans. Regional offices can adjust their 
training plans throughout the year to address shifting priorities and 
unexpected training needs. For example, a regional office may add or 
remove courses from the plan in response to changing trends in errors 
or policy changes resulting from legal decisions. (See app. III for 
excerpts from the fiscal year 2007 training plans from the regional 
offices we visited.) 

While regional offices have discretion over the methods they use to 
provide training, the four offices we visited relied primarily on 
classroom training in fiscal year 2007. In each of these offices, at 
least 80 percent of the total fiscal year 2007 training hours completed 
by all claims processors was in the form of classroom instruction (see 
fig. 3). Officials in two of the regional offices we visited said they 
used lesson plans provided by the Compensation and Pension Service and 
adapted these plans to the needs of their staff; one regional office 
developed its own courses. An official in one office said they 
sometimes invite guest speakers, and an official in another regional 
office said that classroom training is sometimes delivered as part of 
team meetings. The offices we visited generally made little use of 
other training methods. Only one office used TPSS for its training more 
than 1 percent of the time. Two offices used self-instruction--such as 
reading memos from VBA central office--for about 10 percent of their 
training, and no office used videos for more than 1 percent of their 
training. The central office usually communicates immediate policy and 
regulatory changes through memos called Fast Letters, which may be 
discussed in team meetings or may just be read by staff individually. 

Figure 3: Most Fiscal Year 2007 Training Hours Completed by Claims 
Processors in the Offices We Visited Were in the Form of Classroom 
Instruction: 

[See PDF for image} 

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

Office: Atlanta; 
Classroom training: 99%; 
Self-instruction: 0; 
TPSS: 0; 
Video: 1%. 

Office: Baltimore; 
Classroom training: 80%; 
Self-instruction: 1%; 
TPSS: 19%; 
Video: 0. 

Office: Milwaukee; 
Classroom training: 91%; 
Self-instruction: 8%; 
TPSS: 0; 
Video: 1%. 

Office: Portland; 
Classroom training: 85%; 
Self-instruction: 14%; 
TPSS: 1%; 
Video: 0. 

Source: VBA central office and regional offices. 

[End of figure] 

Staff Are Not Held Accountable for Meeting Their Training Requirement: 

Because the agency has no policy outlining consequences for individual 
staff who do not complete their 80 hours of training per year, 
individual staff are not held accountable for meeting their annual 
training requirement, and at present, VBA central office lacks the 
ability to track training completed by individual staff members. 
According to VBA officials, however, the agency is in the process of 
implementing an automated system that should allow it to track the 
training each staff member completes. Officials reported that this 
system is expected to be implemented during fiscal year 2008. VBA 
officials reported that this system will be able to record the number 
of training hours and the courses completed for each individual, staff 
position, and regional office. One official said the central office and 
regional office supervisors will have the ability to monitor training 
completed by individual staff members, but that central office will 
likely not monitor the training completed by each individual staff 
member, even though it may monitor the training records for a sample of 
staff members. Furthermore, despite the absence of a VBA-wide tracking 
system, managers in two of the regional offices we visited reported 
using locally developed tracking methods to determine the number of 
training hours their staff had completed. 

While individuals are not held accountable, VBA reported taking some 
steps to ensure that staff complete the required number of training 
hours. VBA central office periodically reviews the aggregated number of 
training hours completed at each regional office to determine whether 
the office is on track to meet the training requirement.[Footnote 8] 
According to a VBA official, managers in offices where the staff is not 
on track to complete 80 hours of training during the year can be 
reprimanded by a higher-level manager, and if their staff do not meet 
the aggregate training hours at the end of the fiscal year, managers 
could face negative consequences in their performance assessments. 

VBA Is Taking Steps to Strategically Plan Its Training for Staff, but 
Does Not Adequately Evaluate Training and May Be Falling Short in 
Design and Implementation: 

VBA is taking steps to strategically plan its training for VSRs and 
RVSRs including the establishment of a training board to assess VBA's 
training needs. VBA has also made some effort to evaluate its training 
for new staff, but does not require regional offices to collect 
feedback from staff on any of the training they provide. Although some 
regional offices collect some training feedback, it is not shared with 
VBA central office. Both new and experienced staff we interviewed did, 
in fact, report some problems with their training. A number of new 
staff raised issues with how consistently their training curriculum was 
implemented. Experienced staff differed in their assessments of the 
VBA's annual training requirement, with some indicating they struggle 
to meet this requirement because of workload pressures or that training 
topics are sometimes redundant or not relevant to their position. 

VBA Is Taking Steps to Strategically Plan Its Training: 

VBA is taking steps to strategically plan its training for claims 
processors, in accordance with generally accepted practices identified 
by GAO. (See app. I for a detailed description of these generally 
accepted practices.) 

Aligning Training with the Agency's Mission and Goals: 

VBA has made an effort to align training with the agency's mission and 
goals. According to VBA documents, in fiscal year 2004 an Employee 
Training and Learning Board (board) was established to ensure that 
training decisions within the VBA are coordinated; support the agency's 
strategic and business plans, goals and objectives; and are in 
accordance with the policy and vision of VBA.[Footnote 9] Some of the 
board's responsibilities include establishing training priorities and 
reviewing regional office and annual training plans. 

Identifying the Skills and Competencies Needed by the Workforce: 

VBA has identified the skills and competencies needed by VBA's claims 
processing workforce. VBA developed a decision tree and task analysis 
of the claims process, which GAO experts in the field of training told 
us made it possible to understand and map both the claims process and 
the decisions associated with it that supported the development of 
VBA's training curriculum. 

Determining the Appropriate Level of Investment in Training and 
Prioritizing Funding: 

VBA is taking steps to determine the appropriate level of investment in 
training and prioritize funding. According to VBA documents, some of 
the board's responsibilities include developing annual training budget 
recommendations and identifying and recommending training initiatives 
to the Under Secretary of Benefits. VBA officials also reported 
developing several documents that made a business case for different 
aspects of VBA's training, such as VA's annual budget and the task 
analysis of the VSR and RVSR job positions. 

Considering Government Reforms and Initiatives: 

According to one VBA official, the agency identifies regulatory, 
statutory, and administrative changes as well as any legal or judicial 
decisions that affect how VBA does business and issues guidance 
letters, or Fast Letters, which can be sent out several times a year, 
to notify regional offices of these changes. Also, as a result of 
Congress authorizing an increase in its number of full-time employees 
and VBA's succession planning efforts, VBA has increased the number of 
centralized training sessions for new staff and has also increased the 
number of Instructor Development Courses offered to potential 
centralized training instructors. As a result, VBA is taking steps to 
consider government reforms and initiatives to improve its management 
and performance when planning its training. 

VBA Collects Feedback on Centralized Training, but Regional Offices Do 
not Always Collect Feedback on the Training They Provide: 

According to accepted practices, federal agencies should also evaluate 
their training programs and demonstrate how these efforts help 
employees, rather than just focusing on activities or processes (such 
as number of training participants or hours of training). VBA has made 
some efforts to evaluate its training for claims processors. During the 
3-week centralized training session for new staff, VBA solicits daily 
feedback from participants using forms that experts in the training 
field consider well-constructed and well-balanced. According to one GAO 
expert, the forms generally employ the correct principles to determine 
the effectiveness of the training and ascertain whether the instructor 
effectively presented the material (see fig. 4). VBA officials told us 
that they have used this feedback to improve centralized training for 
new staff. Management at one regional office cited the decision to 
separate training curricula for VSRs on Pre-determination teams and 
VSRs on Post-determination teams as an example of a change based on 
this feedback. 

Figure 4: Sample of VBAï¿½s Centralized Training Evaluation Form: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a sample of VBAï¿½s Centralized Training Evaluation Form. 
as follows: 

Baltimore Classroom 1 Centralized Training Topic Evaluation - 2008 
Session 4: 

* Please select your training topic from the list of options: 

1. Rate the overall quality of the content: 
Excellent: 
Good: 
Fair: 
Poor: 

2. Rate the overall effectiveness of the practical exercises: 
Excellent: 
Good: 
Fair: 
Poor: 

3. Rate the overall effectiveness of the instructor(s): 
Excellent: 
Good: 
Fair: 
Poor: 

4. How was the pace of the instruction? 
About right: 
Too slow: 
Too fast: 
Much too slow: 
Much too fast: 

5. What would have made this training more useful? Please explain: 

6. Please include any additional narrative comments about the 
training/instructor(s): 

Submit: 

Source: VBA. 

[End of figure] 

Although VBA evaluates centralized training, it does not require 
regional offices to obtain feedback from participants on any of the 
training they provide to new and experienced staff. In a previous GAO 
report, VA staff told us that new training materials they develop are 
evaluated before being implemented.[Footnote 10] However, none of the 
regional offices we visited consistently collect feedback on the 
training they conduct. Supervisors from three of the regional offices 
we visited told us that they collect feedback on some of the training 
their office conducts, but this feedback largely concerns the 
performance of the instructor. Participants are generally not asked for 
feedback on course content. Moreover, regional offices we visited that 
do, to some degree, collect feedback do not share this information with 
VBA. 

VBA's Training Curriculum for New Staff Appears Generally Well 
Designed, but Some Staff Raised Issues Concerning Its Implementation: 

According to GAO experts in the training field, VBA's training 
curriculum for new staff appears well designed. VBA's curriculum for 
new staff conforms to adult learning principles, carefully defining all 
pertinent terms and concepts, and providing abundant and realistic 
examples of claims work. GAO experts also determined that VBA's 
training for those who teach the curriculum for new staff was well 
designed and would enable experienced claims processors to become 
competent trainers because they are coached on teaching theory and have 
multiple opportunities to practice their teaching skills and receive 
feedback. 

Many of the new staff at all four sites we visited reported that 
centralized training provided them with a good foundation of knowledge 
and prepared them for additional training conducted by their regional 
office. Also, regional office managers from three offices we visited 
told us that centralized training affords new staff the opportunity to 
network with other new staff at different regional offices, which 
imbues a sense of how their positions fit in the organization. However, 
some staff reported that VBA's implementation of their centralized 
training was not always consistent. A number of staff at three regional 
offices reported that during their centralized training the instructors 
sometimes taught different ways of performing the same procedures or 
disagreed on claim procedures. Regional office officials told us that 
while centralized training instructors attempt to teach consistently 
through the use of standardized training materials, certain procedures 
can be done differently in different regional offices while adhering to 
VBA policy. For example, regional offices may differ on what to include 
in veteran notification letters. VBA officials also told us that 
centralized training conducted at the regional offices may not be as 
consistent as centralized training conducted at the Veterans Benefits 
Academy. According to these officials, unlike the regional offices, the 
Veterans Benefits Academy has on-site training experts to guide and 
ensure that instructors are teaching the curriculum consistently. 

New staff also gave mixed assessments about how training was conducted 
at their home office after they returned from centralized training. 
While some staff at all of the regional offices we visited told us that 
the additional training better prepared them to perform their jobs, 
with on-the-job training identified as a useful learning tool, others 
told us that the training could not always be completed in a timely 
manner due to regional office priorities. Some management and staff at 
two of the regional offices we visited reported that, because of 
workload pressures, some of their RVSRs had to interrupt their training 
to perform VSR duties. Also, a few new staff indicated that VBA's TPSS 
was somewhat difficult to use.[Footnote 11] Although TPSS was developed 
to provide consistent technical training designed to improve the 
accuracy of claims ratings, a number of staff at all of the regional 
offices we visited reported that TPSS was too theoretical. For example, 
some staff said it provided too much information and no practical 
exercises in applying the knowledge. Some staff also noted that certain 
material in TPSS was out-of-date with policy changes such as how to 
order medical examinations. Some staff at three of the regional offices 
also reported that TPSS was not always useful in training staff, in 
part, because TPSS does not use real cases. Three of the regional 
offices reported using TPSS for less than 1 percent of their training 
and VSRs at one regional office were unaware of what TPSS was. 

Experienced Staff Expressed Mixed Views of the Design and 
Implementation of Their Training: 

At all of the regional offices we visited, staff we spoke with 
generally noted that training enables them to keep up-to-date on 
changes in laws and regulations as well as provides opportunities for 
obtaining refresher training on claims procedures they perform 
infrequently. However, regional office staff we spoke with differed in 
their assessment of the 80-hour requirement. Some regional office staff 
said the number of training hours required was appropriate, while 
others suggested that VBA adopt a graduated approach, with the most 
experienced staff being required to complete fewer hours than new 
staff. VBA officials told us that, in 2007, the Compensation and 
Pension Service reviewed their annual training requirements and 
determined the 80-hour annual training requirement was appropriate. 
However, the officials we spoke with could not identify the criteria 
that were used to make these determinations. Furthermore, VBA 
management does not systematically collect feedback from staff 
evaluating the usefulness of the training they must receive to meet 
this requirement. Consequently, when determining the appropriateness of 
the 80-hour requirement, VBA has not taken into account the views of 
staff to gauge the effect the requirement has on them. 

Experienced staff had mixed views on training provided by the regional 
office. Staff at three regional offices said the core technical 
training topics set by the Compensation and Pension Service are really 
designed for newer staff and do not change much from year to year, and 
therefore experienced staff end up repeating courses. Also, a number of 
staff at all of the regional offices we visited told us some regional 
office training was not relevant for those with more experience. 
Conversely, other regional office staff note that although training 
topics may be the same from year to year, a person can learn something 
new each time the course is covered. Some VBA officials and regional 
office managers also noted that some repetition of courses is good for 
several reasons. Staff may not see a particular issue very often in 
their day-to-day work and can benefit from refreshers. Also, regional 
office managers at one office told us that the core technical training 
topics could be modified to reflect changes in policy so that courses 
are less repetitive for experienced staff. 

Many experienced staff also reported having difficulty meeting the 80- 
hour annual training requirement due to workload pressures. Many of the 
experienced staff we spoke with, at each of the regional offices we 
visited, told us that there is a constant struggle between office 
production goals and training goals. For example, office production 
goals can affect the availability of the regional office's instructors. 
A number of staff from one regional office noted that instructors were 
unable to spend time teaching because of their heavy workloads and 
because instructors' training preparation hours do not count toward the 
80-hour training requirement. Staff at another regional office told us 
that, due to workload pressures, staff may rush through training and 
may not get as much out of it as they should. 

Performance Management System for Claims Processors Generally Conforms 
to Accepted Practices, but May Not Clearly Differentiate between 
Performance Levels: 

VA's performance management system for claims processors is consistent 
with several accepted practices for effective performance management 
systems in the public sector, but may not clearly differentiate between 
staff's overall performance levels. VA's performance management system 
aligns individual performance elements with broader organizational 
performance measures, provides performance feedback to staff throughout 
the year, and emphasizes collaboration. However, the system may not 
clearly differentiate VSRs' and RVSRs' varying levels of performance. 
While the system has five summary rating categories for VSRs and RVSRs, 
several VBA managers told us that, because of a problem with the 
formula used to convert ratings on individual performance elements into 
an overall performance category, it is more difficult for staff to be 
placed in certain categories than others: 

Performance Management System for Claims Processors Is Generally 
Consistent with Accepted Practices: 

The elements used to evaluate individual VSRs' and RVSRs' performance 
appear to be generally aligned with VBA's organizational performance 
measures, something prior GAO work has identified as a well-recognized 
practice for effective performance management systems (see app. I). 
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. VSRs must be 
evaluated on four critical elements: quality, productivity, workload 
management, and customer service. RVSRs are evaluated on quality, 
productivity, and customer service. In addition, VBA central office 
requires regional offices to evaluate their staff on at least one non- 
critical element. The central office has provided a non-critical 
element called cooperation and organizational support, and although 
regional offices are not required to use this particular element, all 
four offices we visited did so (see table 2). For each element, there 
are three defined levels of performance: exceptional, fully successful, 
or less than fully successful.[Footnote 12] Table 2 refers only to the 
fully successful level of performance for each element. 

Table 2: Individual Performance Elements for VSRs and RVSRs: 

Performance element: Critical: Quality; 
How performance is evaluated: A random selection of 5 cases or phone 
calls per month is reviewed for accuracy based on certain criteria, for 
example whether all necessary evidence was requested, proper 
notifications were sent to applicants, and accurate information was 
provided in phone calls. Any case or phone call with one or more errors 
is counted as one inaccurate case or call; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level VSR): 
85% accuracy; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level RVSR): 
85% accuracy. 

Performance element: Critical: Productivity; 
How performance is evaluated: Number of weighted actions (VSRs) or 
weighted cases (RVSRs) completed per day. VSRs receive different 
weights for different actions, such as 0.125 for conducting a telephone 
interview or 1.50 for developing the evidence for a claim with a 
special issue such as radiation. RVSRs receive different levels of 
credit for processing cases with different numbers of issues to be 
evaluated; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level VSR): 
8 weighted actions per day[A]; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level RVSR): 
3.5 weighted cases per day[B]. 

Performance element: Critical: Customer service; 
How performance is evaluated: Number of valid complaints about 
employee's behavior from external customers or internal colleagues; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level VSR): 
No more than 3 valid complaints or incidents. 

Performance element: Critical: Workload management; 
How performance is evaluated: Completion of designated tasks in a 
timely manner, such as obtaining the results of a medical exam within a 
specified period of time; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level VSR): 
Tasks are completed in timely manner 85 percent of the time; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level RVSR): 
Not applicable. 

Performance element: Non-critical[C]: Cooperation and organizational 
support; 
How performance is evaluated: Understanding of agency goals, 
interaction with colleagues, contribution to agency goals; 
Standard for minimum fully successful performance (journey-level VSR): 
Interacts with colleagues professionally. Follows directions and 
adheres to guidance conscientiously. Adjusts easily to different 
working styles and perspectives. 

Source: GAO analysis of VBA information. 

Note: This table includes the levels set for journey-level VSRs and 
RVSRs, who are considered experienced and fully trained in their 
positions. For some elements VBA sets different performance standards 
for entry-level and experienced claims processors. For example, VSRs 
are typically promoted to the journey-level position after about 2 
years. VBA has separate, lower performance standards in the accuracy, 
productivity, and workload management elements for VSRs who are not yet 
at the journey level. Also, regional offices have the option of setting 
fully successful levels for their staff that are higher than the 
national minimum, but not lower. This table indicates instances when 
the regional offices we visited have set thresholds that are higher 
than the national minimum. 

[A] Milwaukee has set a fully successful level of 10 weighted actions 
per day. 

[B] Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Portland have set fully successful levels 
of, respectively, 4, 5, and 3.8 weighted cases per day. 

[C] Regional offices are required to use at least one non-critical 
element. VBA central office provided regional offices with the 
cooperation and organizational support element, but regional offices 
are not required to use this element in particular. 

[End of table] 

Three critical elements in particular--quality, workload management, 
and productivity--are aligned with VBA's organizational performance 
measures (see table 3). According to VA's strategic plan, one key 
organizational performance measure for VBA is overall accuracy in 
rating disability claims. This organizational measure is aligned with 
the quality element for VSRs and RVSRs, which is assessed by measuring 
the accuracy of their claims-processing work. An individual performance 
element designed to motivate staff to process claims accurately should, 
in turn, help VBA meet its overall accuracy goal. Two other key 
performance measures for VBA are the average number of days that open 
disability claims have been pending and the average number of days it 
takes to process disability claims. VSRs are evaluated on their 
workload management, a measure of whether they complete designated 
claims-related tasks within specific deadlines. Individual staff 
performance in this element is linked to the agency's ability to manage 
its claims workload and process claims within goal time frames. 
Finally, a performance measure that VBA uses to evaluate the claims- 
processing divisions within its regional offices--and that, according 
to VBA, relates to the organization's overall mission--is production, 
or the number of compensation and pension claims processed by each 
office in a given time period. Individual VSRs and RVSRs are evaluated 
on their productivity, i.e., the number of claims-related tasks they 
complete per day. Higher productivity by individual staff should result 
in more claims being processed by each regional office and by VBA 
overall. 

Table 3: Performance Elements for VSRs and RVSRs and Corresponding 
Organizational Performance Measures for VBA: 

Performance element for VSRs and RVSRs: Quality; 
Corresponding VBA performance measure(s): Accuracy rate for ratings of 
compensation claims. 

Performance element for VSRs and RVSRs: Productivity; 
Corresponding VBA performance measure(s): Number of compensation and 
pension claims completed by the claims-processing division within a 
regional office in a given time period. 

Performance element for VSRs and RVSRs: Workload management[A]; 
Corresponding VBA performance measure(s): Average days pending for 
compensation and pension claims; (average number of days since claim 
was received by VBA, for all open claims); Average days to process 
compensation and pension claims (average number of days from receipt of 
claim to final decision). 

Source: VBA and GAO analysis. 

[A] Workload management element applies only to VSRs, not RVSRs. 

[End of table] 

The performance management system for VSRs and RVSRs also appears to be 
consistent with several other accepted practices for performance 
management systems in the public sector: 

Providing and Routinely Using Performance Information to Track 
Organizational Priorities: 

Providing objective performance information to individuals helps show 
progress in achieving organizational goals and allows individuals to 
manage their performance during the year by identifying performance 
gaps and improvement opportunities. Regional offices are supposed to 
use the critical and non-critical performance elements to evaluate and 
provide feedback to their staff. Supervisors are required to provide at 
least one progress review to their VSRs and RVSRs each year, indicating 
how their performance on each element compares to the defined standards 
for fully successful performance. In the offices we visited, 
supervisors typically provide some feedback to staff on a monthly 
basis. For example, VSRs in the Atlanta regional office receive a memo 
on their performance each month showing their production in terms of 
average weighted actions per day, their accuracy percentage based on a 
review of a sample of cases, and how their performance compared to the 
minimum requirements for production and accuracy. If staff members fall 
below the fully successful level in a critical element at any time 
during the year, a performance improvement plan must be implemented to 
help the staff member improve. 

Connecting Performance Expectations to Crosscutting Goals: 

Performance elements related to collaboration or teamwork can help 
reinforce behaviors and actions that support crosscutting goals and 
provide a consistent message to all employees about how they are 
expected to achieve results. VSR and RVSR performance related to 
customer service is evaluated partly based on whether any valid 
complaints have been received about a staff member's interaction with 
their colleagues. And performance related to the cooperation and 
organizational support element is based on whether staff members' 
interaction with their colleagues is professional and constructive. 

Using Competencies to Provide a Fuller Assessment of Performance: 

Competencies, which define the skills and supporting behaviors that 
individuals are expected to exhibit to carry out their work 
effectively, can provide a fuller assessment of an individual's 
performance. In addition to elements that are evaluated in purely 
quantitative terms, VBA uses a cooperation and organizational support 
element for VSRs and RVSRs that requires supervisors to assess whether 
their staff are exhibiting a number of behaviors related to performing 
well as a claims processor. 

Involving Employees and Stakeholders to Gain Ownership of the 
Performance Management System: 

Actively involving employees and stakeholders in developing the 
performance management system and providing ongoing training on the 
system helps increase their understanding and ownership of the 
organizational goals and objectives. For example, VA worked with the 
union representing claims processors to develop an agreement about its 
basic policies regarding performance management. Also, VBA indicated 
that it planned to pilot revisions to how productivity is measured for 
VSRs in a few regional offices, partly so VSRs would have a chance to 
provide feedback on the changes. 

VA's System May Not Clearly Differentiate between Performance Levels: 

Clear differentiation between staff performance levels is also an 
accepted practice for effective performance management systems. Systems 
that do not result in meaningful distinctions between different levels 
of 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. GAO has 
previously reported that, in order to provide meaningful distinctions 
in performance for experienced staff, agencies should use performance 
rating scales with at least three levels, and scales with four or five 
levels are preferable because they allow for even greater 
differentiation between performance levels.[Footnote 13] If staff 
members are concentrated in just one or two of multiple performance 
levels, however, the system may not be making meaningful distinctions 
in performance. 

VA's performance appraisal system has the potential to clearly 
differentiate between staff performance levels. Each fiscal year, 
regional offices give their staff a rating on each critical and non- 
critical performance element using a three-point scale--exceptional, 
fully successful, or less than fully successful. Based on a VA-wide 
formula, the combination of ratings across these elements is converted 
into one of VA's five overall performance levels: outstanding, 
excellent, fully successful, minimally satisfactory, and unsatisfactory 
(see fig. 5). Regional offices may award financial bonuses to staff on 
the basis of their end-of-year performance category.[Footnote 14] Prior 
to fiscal year 2006, VA used two performance levels--successful and 
unacceptable--to characterize each staff member's overall performance. 
To better differentiate between the overall performance levels of 
staff, VA abandoned this pass-fail system in that year, choosing 
instead to use a five-level scale. 

Figure 5: VA Overall Performance Appraisal Formula: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the VA Overall Performance Appraisal 
Formula. The following information is depicted: 

Ratings on Critical Elements: All exceptionals; and; 
Ratings on Non-Critical elements: All exceptionals; yields:
Overall Performance Category: Outstanding. 

Ratings on Critical Elements: All exceptionals; and; 
Ratings on Non-Critical elements: One or more fully successful(s), any 
others exceptionals; yields:
Overall Performance Category: Excellent. 

Ratings on Critical Elements: One or more fully successful(s), all 
others exceptionals; and; 
Ratings on Non-Critical elements: All fully successfuls or 
exceptionals; yields:
Overall Performance Category: Fully Successful. 

Ratings on Critical Elements: One or more less than fully successful(s);
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 VSRs and RVSRs may not clearly or accurately differentiate 
among staff's performance. VBA central office officials and managers in 
two of the four regional offices we visited raised concerns with VA's 
formula for translating ratings on individual performance elements into 
an overall performance rating.[Footnote 15] These officials said that 
under this formula it is more difficult for staff to be placed in 
certain overall performance categories than others, even if staff's 
performance truly does fall within one of those categories. Indeed, at 
least 90 percent of all claims processors in the regional offices we 
visited were placed in either the outstanding or the fully successful 
category in fiscal year 2007. (Fig. 6 shows the distribution of overall 
performance ratings for claims processors in each office.) [Footnote 
16] 

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2007 Overall Performance Ratings for Claims 
Processors in Four Regional Offices Were Concentrated in the 
Outstanding and Fully Successful Categories: 

[See 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. 

Note: These data cover VSRs, RVSRs, and some other claims processing 
staff. 

[End of figure] 

Central and regional office managers noted that, in particular, it is 
difficult for staff to receive an overall rating of excellent. Managers 
in one office said there are staff whose performance is better than 
fully successful but not quite outstanding, but under the formula it is 
difficult for these staff to be placed in the excellent category as the 
managers feel they should be. An excellent rating requires exceptional 
ratings in all the critical elements and a fully successful rating in 
at least one non-critical element. However, according to staff we 
interviewed, virtually all staff who are exceptional in the critical 
elements are also exceptional in all non-critical element(s), so they 
appropriately end up in the outstanding category. On the other hand, 
the overall rating for staff who receive a fully successful rating on 
just one of the critical elements--even if they are rated exceptional 
in all the other elements--drops down to fully successful. Managers in 
one regional office commented that the system would produce more 
accurate overall performance ratings if staff were given an overall 
rating of excellent when they had, for example, exceptional ratings on 
three of five overall elements and fully successful ratings on the 
other two. 

An official in VA's Office of Human Resources Management acknowledged 
that there may be an issue with the agency's formula. Although neither 
VBA nor VA central office officials have examined the distribution of 
VSRs and RVSRs across the five overall performance ratings, VA 
indicated it is considering changes to the system designed to allow for 
greater differentiation in performance ratings. For example, one 
possible change would be to use a five-point scale for rating 
individual elements--probably mirroring the five overall performance 
rating categories of outstanding, excellent, fully successful, 
minimally satisfactory, and unsatisfactory--rather than the current 
three-point scale. Under the proposed change, a staff member who was 
generally performing at the excellent but not outstanding level could 
get excellent ratings in all the elements and receive an overall rating 
of excellent. This change must still be negotiated with several 
stakeholder groups, according to the VA official we interviewed. 

Conclusions: 

In many ways, VBA has developed a training program for its new staff 
that is consistent with accepted training practices in the federal 
government. However, because VBA does not centrally evaluate or collect 
feedback on training provided by its regional offices, it lacks the 
information needed to determine if training provided at regional 
offices is useful and what improvements, if any, may be needed. 
Ultimately, this information would help VBA determine if 80 hours of 
training annually is the right amount, particularly for its experienced 
staff, and whether experienced staff members are receiving training 
that is relevant for their positions. Identifying the right amount of 
training is crucial for the agency as it tries to address its claims 
backlog. An overly burdensome training requirement needlessly may take 
staff away from claims processing, while too little training could 
contribute to processing inaccuracies. Also, without collecting 
feedback on regional office training, VBA may not be aware of issues 
with the implementation of its TPSS, the on-line training tool designed 
to ensure consistency across offices in technical training. Setting 
aside the issue of how many hours of training should be required, VBA 
does not hold its staff accountable for fulfilling their training 
requirement. As a result, 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. With the 
implementation of its new learning management system, VBA should soon 
have the ability to track training completed by individual staff 
members, making it possible to hold them accountable for meeting the 
training requirement. 

As with its training program for VSRs and RVSRs, the VA is not 
examining the performance management system for claims processors as 
closely as it should. VBA is generally using the right elements to 
evaluate its claims processors' performance, and the performance 
appraisals have the potential to give managers information they can use 
to recognize and reward higher levels of performance. However, evidence 
suggests the formula used to place VSRs and RVSRs into overall 
performance categories may not clearly and accurately differentiate 
among staff's performance levels. 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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct VBA to: 

* Collect and review feedback from staff on the training conducted at 
the regional offices to determine: 

* if the 80-hour annual training requirement is appropriate for all 
VSRs and RVSRs; 

* the extent to which regional offices provide training that is 
relevant to VSRs' and RVSRs' work, given varying levels of staff 
experience; and: 

* whether regional offices find the TPSS a useful learning tool and, if 
not, what adjustments are needed to make it more useful; and: 

* Use information from its new learning management system to hold 
individual VSRs and RVSRs accountable for completing whatever annual 
training requirement it determines is appropriate. 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should also examine the distribution 
of claims processing staff across overall performance categories to 
determine if its performance appraisal system clearly differentiates 
between overall performance levels, and if necessary adjust its system 
to ensure that it makes clear distinctions. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
for review and comment. In VA's written comments (see app. IV), the 
agency agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our 
recommendations. For example, VBA plans to consult with regional office 
staff to evaluate its annual 80-hour training requirement and will 
examine if staff performance ratings clearly differentiate between 
overall performance levels. VA also provided technical comments that 
were incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, relevant congressional committees, and others who are 
interested. We will also provide copies to others on request. The 
report is also available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 
questions about this report. Contact points for the Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely, 

Singed by: 

Daniel Bertoni: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were asked to determine: (1) What training is provided to new and 
experienced claims processors and how uniform is this training? (2) To 
what extent has the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) developed a 
strategic approach to planning training for claims processors and how 
well is their training designed, implemented, and evaluated? And (3) To 
what extent is the performance management system for claims processors 
consistent with generally accepted performance management practices in 
the public sector? To answer these questions, we reviewed documents and 
data from the central office of the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and interviewed VBA central 
office officials. We conducted site visits to and collected data from 
four VBA regional offices, and visited the Veterans Benefits Academy. 
We also interviewed officials from the American Federation of 
Government Employees, the labor union that represents Veterans Service 
Representatives (VSR) and Rating Veterans Service Representatives 
(RVSR). We compared VBA's training and performance management systems 
to accepted human capital principles and criteria compiled by GAO. We 
conducted this performance audit from September 2007 through May 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Regional Office Site Visits: 

We conducted site visits to 4 of VBA's 57 regional offices--Atlanta; 
Baltimore; Milwaukee; and Portland, Oregon. We judgmentally selected 
these offices to achieve some diversity in geographic location, number 
of staff, and claims processing accuracy rates, and what we report 
about these sites may not necessarily be representative of any other 
regional offices or all regional offices (see fig. 7). [Footnote 17] 

Figure 7: Regional Offices Selected for Site Visits: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the United States depicting the regional 
offices selected for site visits. The following information is 
represented: 

Eastern Area: 
Location: Baltimore, Maryland; 
Number of staff[A]: 122.5; rank[B]: 37th; 
Accuracy rate[C]: 88%; rank[B]: 32nd. 

Southern Area: 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia; 
Number of staff[A]: 590.5; rank[B]: 3rd; 
Accuracy rate[C]: 84%; rank[B]: 48th. 

Central Area: 
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 
Number of staff[A]: 362.9; rank[B]: 12th; 
Accuracy rate[C]: 92%; rank[B]: 13th. 

Western Area: 
Location: Portland, Oregon; 
Number of staff[A]: 156.1; rank[B]: 31st; 
Accuracy rate[C]: 86%; rank[B]: 44th. 

Sources: VBA; Map Resources (map). 

[A] Full-time equivalents as of September 2007. 

[B] Rank among all 57 regional offices. 

[C] Claims-processing accuracy rate for the period of August 1, 2006 to 
July 31, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

During our site visits, we interviewed regional office managers, 
supervisors of VSRs and RVSRs, VSRs, and RVSRs about the training and 
performance management practices in their offices. The VSRs and RVSRs 
we interviewed at the four regional offices had varying levels of 
experience at VBA. Regional office managers selected the staff we 
interviewed. We also observed a demonstration of VBA's on-line learning 
tool, the Training and Performance Support System (TPSS), and collected 
data from the regional offices on, for example, the training they 
provided during fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 18] In conjunction with our 
visit to the Baltimore regional office, we also visited VBA's Veterans 
Benefits Academy, where we observed classes for VSRs and RVSRs and 
interviewed the director of the Academy. 

Assessment of VBA's Training for Claims Processors: 

To determine whether VBA's training program is consistent with accepted 
training practices in the public sector, we relied partly on a guide 
developed by GAO that lays out principles that federal agencies should 
follow to ensure their training is effective.[Footnote 19] This guide 
was developed in collaboration with government officials and experts in 
the private sector, academia, and nonprofit organizations; and in 
conjunction with a review of laws, regulations and literature on 
training and development issues, including previous GAO reports. The 
guide lays out the four broad components of the training and 
development process (see fig. 8). 

Figure 8: Four Components of the Training and Development Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the four components of the training 
and development process. The first three components are sequential, but 
all three provide information the the final component. The following 
information is depicted: 

Planning/Front-end Analysis: 
* Develop a strategic approach that establishes priorities and 
leverages investments in training and development to achieve agency 
results. 

Design/Development: 
* Identify specific training and development initiatives that, in 
conjunction with other strategies, improve individual and agency 
performance. 

Implementation: 
* Ensure effective and efficient delivery of training and development 
opportunities in an environment that supports learning and change. 

Evaluation: 
* Demonstrate how training and development efforts contribute to 
improved performance and results. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: The evaluation component may include the use of participant 
feedback to ensure continuous improvement, as well as an assessment of 
the impact of training on organizational performance. We have reported 
that higher-level evaluations that attempt to measure the return on 
investment in a training program may not always be appropriate, given 
the complexity and costs associated with efforts to directly link 
training programs to improved individual and organizational 
performance. 

[End of figure] 

The guide also provides key questions for federal agencies to consider 
in assessing their performance in each component. (See table 4 for a 
sample of these questions.) 

Table 4: Selected Key Questions to Consider in Assessing Agencyï¿½s 
Training Program: 

Planning/Front End Analysis: 
* Does the agency have training goals and related performance measures 
that are consistent with its overall mission, goals, and culture? 
* How does the agency identify the appropriate investment to provide 
for training and development efforts and prioritize funding so that the 
most important training needs are addressed first? 

Design and Development; 
* What criteria does the agency use in determining whether to design 
training and development programs in-house or obtain these services 
from a contractor or other external source? 
* Does the agency use the most appropriate mix of centralized and 
decentralized approaches for its training and development programs? 

Implementation; 
* What steps do agency leaders take to communicate the importance of 
training and developing employees, and their expectations for training 
and development programs to achieve results? 
* How does the agency select employees to participate in training and 
development efforts? 

Evaluation; 
* To what extent does the agency systematically plan for and evaluate 
the effectiveness of its training and development efforts? 
* How does the agency incorporate evaluation feedback into the 
planning, design, and implementation of its training and development 
efforts? 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

In addition, GAO training experts reviewed VBA materials, including 
training curricula, lesson plans, and course evaluation forms, to 
determine if these materials are consistent with accepted training 
practices. 

Assessment of VBA's Performance Management System for Claims 
Processors: 

In assessing the performance management system for VSRs and RVSRs, we 
relied primarily on a set of accepted practices of effective public 
sector performance management systems that has been compiled by 
GAO.[Footnote 20] To identify these accepted practices, GAO reviewed 
its prior reports on performance management that drew on the 
experiences of public sector organizations both in the United States 
and abroad. For the purpose of this review, we focused on the six 
accepted practices most relevant for VBA's claims-processing workforce 
(see table 5). 

Table 5: Selected Accepted Practices for Effective Performance 
Management Systems: 

Practice: Aligning individual performance expectations with 
organizational goals; 
Description: Explicitly aligning individuals' daily activities with 
broader results helps individuals see the connection between their work 
and organizational goals and encourages individuals to focus on their 
roles and responsibilities to help achieve those broader goals. 

Practice: Connecting performance expectations to crosscutting goals; 
Description: Fostering collaboration, interaction, and teamwork across 
organizational boundaries to achieve results strengthens accountability 
for these results. 

Practice: Providing and routinely using performance information to 
track organizational priorities; 
Description: Providing objective performance information to both 
managers and staff to show progress in achieving organizational results 
and other priorities helps them manage during the year, identify 
performance gaps, and pinpoint improvement opportunities. 

Practice: Using competencies to provide a fuller assessment of 
performance; 
Description: Using competencies, which define the skills and supporting 
behaviors that individuals need to effectively contribute to 
organizational results, can provide a fuller picture of an individual's 
performance. 

Practice: Making meaningful distinctions in performance; 
Description: Providing individuals with candid and constructive 
feedback helps them maximize their contribution, and providing 
management with objective and fact-based information that clearly 
differentiates between different levels of performance enables it to 
reward top performers and deal with poor performers. 

Practice: Involving employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of 
performance management systems; 
Description: Actively involving employees and stakeholders in 
developing the performance management system and providing ongoing 
training on the system helps increase their understanding and ownership 
of the organizational goals and objectives. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2007 Core Technical Training Requirements for 
VSRs and RVSRs: 

Position: Decision Review Officers (DRO); GS13/Rating Veterans Service 
Representatives (RVSR); GS7-12; (Seasoned); Required: 80 hours; Any DRO 
or RVSR who conducts a training session will also be given credit for 
those training hours as part of their training requirement; 
Course title or topic: 
Effective Dates; 
Diabetes Mellitus; 
Leishmaniasis; 
Original Compensation Ratings; 
Original Pension Ratings; 
Original DIC Ratings; 
Rating re-opened claims; 
Claims for Increase; 
New and Material Evidence; 
Re-opened DIC ratings; 
Routine Future Exams; 
3.105(e) reductions; 
Paragraph 28/29/30 ratings; 
Due Process Provisions; 
Clear and unmistakable errors (3.105(a)); 
Ancillary Benefits; 
Accrued Ratings; 
Musculoskeletal issues; 
Eye-Vision Issues; 
Infectious Diseases; 
Ear-Hearing; 
Respiratory Disorders; 
Cardiovascular Issues; 
Digestive Issues; 
Genitourinary System; 
Gynecology; 
Hemic/Lymphatic; 
Endocrine (other than DM); 
Neurological; 
Mental Disorder (other than PTSD); 
PTSD; 
Special Monthly Compensation (SMC); 
The Appeals Process; 
Responsibilities of a DRO; 
Hearings; 
Informal Conferences; 
Resolution of Claims; 
Certifying a case to BVA; 
Processing Remands; 
Preparing a Statement of the Case (SOC); 
Preparing a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC); 
Role of the Rating Specialist; 
Benefit of the Doubt; 
Weighing Evidence; 
60 Hours of the required 80 Hours will be selected from the suggested 
topics above. The remaining 20 hours will be selected at the Stations 
discretion based upon their own individual quality review; (Training 
provided from the above topics can be focused on a particular aspect of 
the topic; i.e. Cold Injuries and Rating Hypertension from 
Cardiovascular issues could be separate classes); 
Participation in Agency Advancement Programs (i.e., LEAD, LVA) does not 
substitute for Required training requirements; 
Training source: C&P Training Website [hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/RVSR/RVSR_Tng_Curr.htm]; Fast 
Letters' Training Letters; Court Decisions; TPSS (Can be used as 
refresher training for seasoned employees by module); EPSS; Manuals; 
Regulations; Additional Issue Specific Lesson Plans are under 
development; (Lesson plans can be taken from the Centralized Training 
Curriculum found on the C&P Intranet Training Site. If used as provided 
they do not require C&P review and approval); These plans can and often 
should be modified to focus in on a particular narrow issue of training 
need. Modified lesson plans are to be submitted to C&P Service for 
review and approval at least 30 days prior to delivery of training; Any 
Challenge-oriented original lesson plan developed by Station personnel 
is to be submitted to C&P Service for review and approval at least 30 
days prior to delivery of training.) C&P Service Broadcasts that may be 
provided during the course of the FY may be substituted in place of any 
training scheduled on an hour by hour basis. 

Position: Veteran Service Representative (VSR); GS 7-12 (Seasoned); 
Required: 80 hours; Any Super Senior VSR, Senior VSR, or VSR, who 
conducts a training session will also be given credit for those 
training hours including preparation time as part of their training 
requirement; 
Course title or topic: 
Reference Materials: Manual Training & WARMS; 
C&P Website; 
Claims Folder Maintenance; 
Records Management; 
POA/Service Orgs.; 
Original Compensation Claims; 
Re-opened Compensation Claims; 
VA Form 21-526; 
Establishing Veteran Status; 
Claims Recognition; 
Duty to Assist; 
Requesting VA Exams; 
Issue Specific Claims Development; 
Asbestos Claims Development; 
Herbicide Claims Development; 
POW Claims Development; 
Radiation Claims Development; 
PTSD Claims Development; 
Undiagnosed Illness Claims Development; 
Dependency Issues; Contested Claims; 
Deemed Valid and Common Law Marriages; 
Continuous Cohabitation; 
Pension; 
SHARE; 
COVERS; 
MAP D; 
MAP A; 
Administrative Decisions; 
Character of Discharge; 
Line of Duty-Willful Misconduct; 
Matching Programs; 
Workload Management; 
DEA Training; 
Intro to Ratings; 
Paragraph 29 & 30 Ratings; 
Ratings & BDN; 
BDN 301 Interface; 
PCGL Award Letters; 
Dependents and the BDN; 
Compensation Offsets; 
Drill Pay Waivers; 
Pension Awards Processing & BDN; 
Hospital Reductions; 
Burial Benefits; 
Death Pension; 
Accrued Benefits; 
Accrued Awards & the BDN; 
Apportionments; 
Special Monthly Pension; 
Helpless Child; 
Incompetency/Fiduciary Arrangements; 
Claims Processing; 
Auto Allowance and Adaptive Equipment; 
Special Adapted Housing; 
Special Home Adaptation Grants; 
Incarcerated Veterans; 
Processing Write Outs; 
FOIA/Privacy Act; 
Telephone & Interview Techniques; 
Telephone Development; 
IRIS; 
Introduction to VACOLS; 
Education Benefits; 
Insurance Benefits; 
National Cemetery; 
VR&E Benefits; 
Loan Guaranty Benefits; 
General Benefits - FAQs; 
Suicidal Caller Guidance; 
Non-Receipt of BDN Payments; 
Mail Handling; Income & Net Worth Determinations; 
Bootcamp test and review of VSR; 
Readiness Guide (2 HRS Required); 
Reference Material Training and Navigation (1 HR Required); 
Appeals and Ancillary Benefits; 
Ready to Rate Development; 
Customer Service; 
FNOD Info and PMC Process; 
Intro to Appeals Process; 
DRO Selection Letter; 
Income Adjustment Materials; 
Income Adjustments; 
60 Hours of the required 80 Hours will be selected from the suggested 
topics above. The remaining 20 hours will be selected at the Stations 
discretion based upon their own individual quality review; 
Training source: C&P Training Website [hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/VSR/VSR_Curriculum.htm] or, 
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/VSR/VSR_Curriculum.htm#pctt]; 
Fast Letters; 
Training Letters; 
Court Decisions; 
TPSS (Can be used as refresher training for seasoned employees by 
module); 
EPSS; 
Manuals; 
Regulations; 
Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents; 
Business Line Internet Sites; 
Conference Calls (VACO/C&P Service); 
Star Reporter; 
Additional Issue Specific Lesson Plans are under development; 
(Lesson plans can be taken from the Centralized Training Curriculum 
found on the C&P Intranet Training Site. If used as provided they do 
not require C&P review and approval); 
These plans can and often should be modified to focus in on a 
particular narrow issue of training need. Modified lesson plans are to 
be submitted to C&P Service for review and approval at least 30 days 
prior to delivery of training; 
Any Challenge-oriented original lesson plan developed by Station 
personnel is to be submitted to C&P Service for review and approval at 
least 30 days prior to delivery of training); 
C&P Service Broadcasts that may be provided during the course of the FY 
may be substituted in place of any training scheduled on an hour by 
hour basis. 

Position: Veterans Services Representative (VSR); GS 7-12 (New); 
Required: Entire Curriculum; (Follow C&P Prescribed Curriculum for new 
VSRs, as posted on intranet); 
Course title or topic: 
Curriculum is posted on C&P Training Intranet Site; 
Claims Processing Prerequisites: 
Human Resources and Orientation; 
Computer Security and LAN; 
Procedures; 
Core Values; 
Core Competencies and Your Job; 
Voice of the Veteran video; 
VA in Motion video; 
VSR Handbook; 
VA Terminology; 
SHARE (BDN & CEST); 
COVERS; 
PIES; 
Return with Honor Video; 
MAPD; 
AMIE/CAPRI; 
Medical TPSS (Medical Terminology); Reader Focused Writing Tools; 
Pre-Determination Team Training; 
Overview of VA Mission; Reference Materials: 
Manual Training & WARMS; 
C&P Website; 
Claims Folder Maintenance; Records Management; 
POA/Service Organizations; Compensation; Original Compensation Claims; 
Non-Original Compensation Claims; 
VA Form 21-526, App. For Compensation or Pension; 
Establishing Veteran Status; 
Claims Recognition; 
Duty to Assist; 
Selecting the Correct Worksheet for VA Exams; 
Issue Specific Claim Development; 
Asbestos Claim Development; 
Herbicide Claim Development; 
POW Claim Development; 
Radiation Claim Development; 
PTSD Claim Development; 
Undiagnosed Illness Claim Development; 
Dependency; 
Contested Claims; 
Deemed Valid and Common-law Marriage; 
Continuous Cohabitation; 
Pension; 
Intro. To Disability Pension; 
Overview of SHARE (SSA); 
Administrative Decision Process; 
Character of Discharge; 
Line of Duty - Willful Misconduct Claims Development; 
Workload Management Utilizing WIPP; 
DEA Training (req. added 4/06); 
Post-Determination Team Training: 
Intro to Ratings; 
Paragraph 29 & 30 Ratings; 
Ratings & the BDN; 
BDN 301 Interface Video; 
PCGL Award Letters; 
PCGL; 
Dependents & the BDN; 
Compensation Offsets; 
Drill Pay Waivers; 
Star Reporter; 
Pension Awards Processing & the BDN; 
Hospital Reductions; 
Burial Benefits; 
Disallowance Processing; 
DIC Benefits; 
Death Pension; 
Accrued Benefits; 
Accrued Awards & the BDN; 
Apportionment; 
Special Monthly Pension; 
Helpless Child; 
Incompetency/Fiduciary Arrangements; 
Claims Processing; 
Automobile Allowance and Adaptive Equipment; 
Specially Adapted Housing and Special Home Adaptation Grants; 
Incarceration; 
Processing Computer Write Outs; 
DEA Training (req. added 4/06); 
Public Contact Team Training; 
FOIA/Privacy Act; 
Communication Skills; 
Telephone Development; 
Inquiry Routing and Information System (IRIS); 
Intro to VACOLS; 
Other VBA Business Lines; 
Customer Service Insurance Education (2 hrs); 
Triage Team Training: FNOD Information & PMC Processing; 
Appeals Team Training: Intro to Appeals Process VACOLS; 
Pension Maintenance Centers; 
Income Adjustment Materials: Income Adjustments; 
Training source: [hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#cpp].
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#pred].
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#postd].
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#pctt]; 
VSR Core Curriculum Video; 
VSR Curriculum; 
VSR Core Curriculum Fast Ltr. 04-12; 
VSR Core Curriculum Threshold Videos Video; [hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#ttt]; 
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#att]; 
[hyperlink, 
http://cptraining.vba.va.gov/C&P_Training/vsr/VSR_Curriculum.htm#iam]. 

Source: VBA. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Excerpts from Fiscal Year 2007 Training Plans for Four 
Regional Offices: 

Each training plan we reviewed contained the same informational 
categories, some of which were what courses were offered by the 
regional office, whether or not the course was conducted, and how many 
employees completed the training. Although the fiscal year 2007 
training plans we reviewed include data on whether and when the course 
was actually completed, the initial training plans submitted at the 
beginning of the fiscal year of course do not have this information. 
The lists provided below include the first 25 courses listed on each 
plan alphabetically, a small sample of the courses that the regional 
offices reported they completed for the fiscal year. 

Table 6: Excerpt from Atlanta Regional Office Training Plan: 

Course name: Accrued Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 150. 

Course name: Accrued Ratings (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 47; 
Total hours of training completed: 80. 

Course name: Administrative Decisions; 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 60. 

Course name: Ancillary Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 14; 
Total hours of training completed: 14. 

Course name: Appeals and Ancillary Benefits (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 26; 
Total hours of training completed: 41. 

Course name: Apportionments (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 29; 
Total hours of training completed: 194. 

Course name: Asbestos Claims Development; 
Number of employees completed: 9; 
Total hours of training completed: 9. 

Course name: Auto Allowance/Special Adapted Housing/Special Home 
Adaptation Grant; 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 30. 

Course name: Benefits Delivery Network 301 Interface (2 sessions 
conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 48; 
Total hours of training completed: 48. 

Course name: Beneficiary Identification Records Locator Subsystem 
Update; 
Number of employees completed: 17; 
Total hours of training completed: 17. 

Course name: Blast Injuries (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 20; 
Total hours of training completed: 20. 

Course name: Burial Benefits (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 36; 
Total hours of training completed: 100. 

Course name: Board of Veterans Appeals Examinations; 
Number of employees completed: 46; 
Total hours of training completed: 69. 

Course name: Compensation & Pension Website (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 108; 
Total hours of training completed: 270. 

Course name: Change of Address/Power of Attorney Processing/No Record 
Mail; 
Number of employees completed: 17; 
Total hours of training completed: 34. 

Course name: Cardiovascular Issues; 
Number of employees completed: 38; 
Total hours of training completed: 76. 

Course name: Certifying a Case to Board of Veterans Appeals; 
Number of employees completed: 12; 
Total hours of training completed: 12. 

Course name: Character of Discharge; 
Number of employees completed: 78; 
Total hours of training completed: 78. 

Course name: Claims Folder Maintenance (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 17; 
Total hours of training completed: 28. 

Course name: Claims for Direct Service Connection/Aggravation/ 
Presumptive Service Connection; 
Number of employees completed: 34; 
Total hours of training completed: 34. 

Course name: Claims for Increase; 
Number of employees completed: 29; 
Total hours of training completed: 58. 

Course name: Claims Processing; 
Number of employees completed: 139; 
Total hours of training completed: 69.5. 

Course name: Claims Recognition; 
Number of employees completed: 84; 
Total hours of training completed: 336. 

Course name: Compensation Offsets (3 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 167; 
Total hours of training completed: 352.5. 

Course name: Computer Security and LAN Procedures; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 6. 

Source: VBA. 

Note: Atlanta's training plan reported the regional office conducted a 
total of 133 courses for fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Excerpt from Baltimore Regional Office Training Plan: 

Course name: Accrued Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 5; 
Total hours of training completed: 10. 

Course name: Automated Medical Information Exchange/Compensation and 
Pension Record Interchange; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 48. 

Course name: Appeals and Ancillary Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 3. 

Course name: Asbestos Claims Development; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 3. 

Course name: Access Standardized Performance Elements Nationwide; 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 2. 

Course name: Auto Allowance and Adaptive Equipment (2 sessions 
conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 16; 
Total hours of training completed: 8. 

Course name: Benefits Delivery at Discharge Development; 
Number of employees completed: 14; 
Total hours of training completed: 21. 

Course name: Benefits Delivery Network 301 Interface (2 sessions 
conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 5; 
Total hours of training completed: 7. 

Course name: Benefit of the Doubt; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 12. 

Course name: Burial Benefits (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 7; 
Total hours of training completed: 14. 

Course name: Compensation & Pension Website (3 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 36.5. 

Course name: Certifying a Case to Board of Veterans Appeals; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 12. 

Course name: Character of Discharge; 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 7.5. 

Course name: Claims Folder Maintenance; 
Number of employees completed: 7; 
Total hours of training completed: 14. 

Course name: Claims Recognition; 
Number of employees completed: 5; 
Total hours of training completed: 20. 

Course name: Communication-Nonverbal Cues; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 1.5. 

Course name: Computer Security and LAN Procedures; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 12. 

Course name: Conducting a Field Exam; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 1.5. 

Course name: Continuous Cohabitation (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 20; 
Total hours of training completed: 20. 

Course name: Core Values; 
Number of employees completed: 5; 
Total hours of training completed: 5. 

Course name: Control of Veterans Records System (3 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 10; 
Total hours of training completed: 12.5. 

Course name: Customer Service (5 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 40; 
Total hours of training completed: 416. 

Course name: Dealing with Difficult Payee Situations; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 3. 

Course name: Deemed Valid and Common Law Marriages (2 sessions 
conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 20; 
Total hours of training completed: 12.5. 

Course name: Dependency Issues (3 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 22; 
Total hours of training completed: 26.5. 

Source: VBA. 

Note: Baltimore's training plan reported the regional office conducted 
a total of 191 courses for fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Excerpt from Milwaukee Regional Office Training Plan: 

Course name: 8824e; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 1. 

Course name: Administrative Decisions; 
Number of employees completed: 14; 
Total hours of training completed: 91. 

Course name: Advanced Data Manipulation in Excel (VA Learning Online); 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 4. 

Course name: All - Litigation Hold Memo; 
Number of employees completed: 130; 
Total hours of training completed: 32.5. 

Course name: All-Encryption Training; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 0.5. 

Course name: Ancillary Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 21; 
Total hours of training completed: 42. 

Course name: Auto Allowance and Adaptive Equipment; 
Number of employees completed: 28; 
Total hours of training completed: 28. 

Course name: Blast Injuries (Video); 
Number of employees completed: 33; 
Total hours of training completed: 33. 

Course name: Board of Veterans Appeals review; 
Number of employees completed: 7; 
Total hours of training completed: 14. 

Course name: Compensation & Pension Website; 
Number of employees completed: 41; 
Total hours of training completed: 102.5. 

Course name: Claims Assistant - Burials; 
Number of employees completed: 4; 
Total hours of training completed: 4. 

Course name: Claims Assistant/Program Support Clerk - Power of 
Attorney; 
Number of employees completed: 24; 
Total hours of training completed: 24. 

Course name: Claims Assistant/Program Support Clerk - Share and Cest; 
Number of employees completed: 21; 
Total hours of training completed: 178.5. 

Course name: Claims Assistant/Program Support Clerk - Veterans Appeals 
Control and Locator System; 
Number of employees completed: 25; 
Total hours of training completed: 25. 

Course name: Cardiovascular Issues; 
Number of employees completed: 30; 
Total hours of training completed: 180. 

Course name: Challenge 07-02 Centralized Training; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 720. 

Course name: Challenge 07-02 Post Centralized Training; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 1440. 

Course name: Challenge 07-02 Pre-Req.; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 720. 

Course name: Claims Folder Maintenance; 
Number of employees completed: 41; 
Total hours of training completed: 82. 

Course name: Claims Recognition; 
Number of employees completed: 26; 
Total hours of training completed: 26. 

Course name: Character of Discharge Determinations, Line of Duty 
Determinations, and Administrative Decisions; 
Number of employees completed: 11; 
Total hours of training completed: 24.75. 

Course name: Compensation Offsets; 
Number of employees completed: 27; 
Total hours of training completed: 94.5. 

Course name: Core Values; 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 3.5. 

Course name: Control of Veterans Records System (2 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 3. 

Course name: Compensation and Pension Examination Project; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 18. 

Source: VBA. 

Note: Milwaukee's training plan reported the regional office conducted 
a total of 323 courses for fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Excerpt from Portland Regional Office Training Plan: 

Course name: 020 Development; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 16.5. 

Course name: 2007 Veterans Service Center Management Workshop; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 26. 

Course name: 3.105(e) Reductions; 
Number of employees completed: 15; 
Total hours of training completed: 15. 

Course name: 38 CFR 3.14 & Pyramiding; 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 0.5. 

Course name: 5-Tier Performance Evaluations; 
Number of employees completed: 7; 
Total hours of training completed: 5.25. 

Course name: 8824 Preparation; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 5. 

Course name: Absence & Leave Circular Training; 
Number of employees completed: 13; 
Total hours of training completed: 13. 

Course name: Account Analysis; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 6. 

Course name: Account Audits; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 6. 

Course name: Accrued Awards & the Benefits Delivery Network; 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 2. 

Course name: Accrued Ratings; 
Number of employees completed: 16; 
Total hours of training completed: 4. 

Course name: Add Dependents/Verifying Service; 
Number of employees completed: 18; 
Total hours of training completed: 9. 

Course name: Admin Decisions/Rebuilt/Special Monthly Compensation; 
Number of employees completed: 4; 
Total hours of training completed: 18. 

Course name: Administrative Decisions; 
Number of employees completed: 5; 
Total hours of training completed: 2.5. 

Course name: Agent Orange development; 
Number of employees completed: 4; 
Total hours of training completed: 4. 

Course name: Amputation Rule; 
Number of employees completed: 2; 
Total hours of training completed: 0.5. 

Course name: Ancillary Benefits; 
Number of employees completed: 28; 
Total hours of training completed: 28. 

Course name: Appeal Procedures--Refresher; 
Number of employees completed: 3; 
Total hours of training completed: 5.25. 

Course name: Appeals; 
Number of employees completed: 33; 
Total hours of training completed: 33. 

Course name: Appeals and Ancillary Benefits (3 sessions conducted); 
Number of employees completed: 34; 
Total hours of training completed: 13. 

Course name: Appeals--Training and Performance Support System modules; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 16. 

Course name: Application/eligibility; 
Number of employees completed: 1; 
Total hours of training completed: 3.5. 

Course name: Apportionments (2 sessions conducted); Number of employees 
completed: 4; Total hours of training completed: 14.5. 

Course name: Asbestos Claims Development; 
Number of employees completed: 23; 
Total hours of training completed: 23. 

Course name: Access Standardized Performance Elements Nationwide; 
Number of employees completed: 6; 
Total hours of training completed: 6. 

Source: VBA. 

Note: Portland's training plan reported the regional office conducted a 
total of 509 courses for fiscal year 2007. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

The Secretary Of Veterans Affairs: 
Washington: 

May 9, 2008: 

Mr. Daniel Bertoni: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Bertoni: 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, Veterans' Benefits: 
Increased Focus on Evaluation and Accountability Would Enhance Training 
and Performance Management for Claims Processors (GAO-08-561) and 
agrees with GAO's conclusions and concurs with GAO's recommendations. 

Robust employee training and effective performance management are 
critical to VA's goal of improving overall timeliness and accuracy of 
veterans claims processing. VA will closely monitor and evaluate the 
success of our efforts to enhance claims processor performance. 

The enclosure addresses each of GAO's recommendations in detail and 
provides technical comments for clarity and accuracy. VA appreciates 
the opportunity to comment on your draft report. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: James B. Peake, M.D. 

Enclosure: 

Department Of Veterans Affairs (VA) Comments To Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report: 

Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and Accountability
Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for Claims Processors
(GAO-08-561): 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct VBA 
to: 

* Collect and review feedback from staff on the training conducted at 
the regional offices to determine: 
- if the 80-hour annual training requirement is appropriate for all 
VSRs and RVSRs. 

Concur. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has an active 
program for training evaluation driven by the Administration's 
priorities. Recent evaluations in support of improving veterans service 
representative (VSR) and rating veterans service representative (RVSR) 
training have included evaluation of VBA's Training and Performance 
Support System (TPSS) (2006-2007 and 2007-2008) and Challenge training 
for VSRs and RVSRs (2007-2008). The 80-hour training requirement for 
VSRs and RVSRs was established in FY 2006 to improve the knowledge and 
skills of claims processors with the ultimate goal of improving 
accuracy and consistency. The 80-hour training requirement has been 
evaluated annually by the Central Office staff and maintained at its 
current level to improve the organization's ability to serve veterans. 
VBA will consult with its regional offices and evaluate the 80-hour 
training requirement for new and seasoned VSRs and RVSRs prior to 
issuance of the training plan call letter for FY 2009. 

- the extent to which regional offices provide training that is 
relevant to VSRs' and RVSRs' work, given varying levels of staff 
experiences. 

Concur. With the introduction of more than 3,100 new VSRs and RVSRs 
into regional offices during FY 2007 and FY 2008, VBA's priority in 
training has been focused on building the knowledge and skill level of 
new employees through consistent curriculum and delivery methods. VBA 
will continue its initiatives to provide relevant field training that 
will hinge on increasing use of the VA Learning Management System (VA 
LMS) to identify training achievements and gaps at the individual 
level. In 2006, VBA established a long-term initiative for advanced 
planning of annual training within regional offices. In its initial 
phase (2006-2008), regional offices developed and submitted annual 
training plans that were reviewed by Central Office officials for 
thoroughness and relevance. Training plans listed the classes that each 
regional office would conduct for each position (e.g., VSR/RVSR), 
including the projected date and designated instructors selected from 
each regional office's more experienced personnel. The initiative's 
second phase began with the fielding of VA LMS this year, which will 
allow for recording and tracking of training on an individual employee 
level. While many regional offices keep records on individual 
employees' training, VA LMS will become the VBA-wide method of 
collecting and reporting this information. In FY 2009, regional offices 
will establish quarterly curricula for VSRs and RVSRs in VA LMS. 
Regional offices have the option of prescribing different curricula for 
varying experience levels. Central Office staff will review the 
curricula for thoroughness and relevance at the administration level, 
but direct supervisors in the field will determine relevance at the 
individual level, given varying levels of staff experiences. With VA 
LMS, supervisors will have easy access to the training records of their 
subordinates, and, therefore, be able to determine the training needs 
of each employee to tailor the training curriculum when appropriate. 

- whether regional offices find the TPSS module a useful learning tool 
and, if not, what adjustments are needed to make it more useful. 

Concur. This action has been completed. VBA will continue to collect 
and evaluate field opinions of TPSS during evaluations, as it has 
during evaluations of TPSS (2006-2007 and 2007-2008) and Challenge 
training for VSRs and RVSRs (2007-2008). While GAO's opportunities to 
collect feedback were confined to interview of a limited number of 
employees from four regional offices, VBA's three evaluations examined 
data collected from 37 regional office visits, 470 interviews, and 
2,718 survey responses. The 2006-2007 TPSS evaluation found that TPSS 
provided value to VBA, and identified areas for improved implementation 
within regional offices. Actions have been assigned for the findings of 
the TPSS evaluation of 2006-2007, and will be assigned based upon the 
findings of the other two evaluations when the reports are finalized. 

* Use information from its new learning management system to hold 
individual VSRs and RVSRs accountable for completing whatever annual 
training requirement it determines is appropriate. 

Concur. The Department has selected a learning management system that 
places oversight responsibility on supervisors for ensuring training 
requirements are met. To support the use of VA LMS in the field, VBA 
has established full-time or part-time training managers in all 
regional offices to support the directors' training information needs, 
and is providing classes that enable use of VA LMS to record individual 
training assignments and completions. The establishment of job-position 
curricula will provide visibility on requirements and accomplishments 
to supervisors at all levels, and to Central Office staff. VBA is 
working closely with the Department's VA LMS program staff to develop 
standardized reports to provide training progress reports to regional 
office and Central Office directors to increase visibility on training 
achievements and deficiencies. 

* GAO recommends the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should also examine 
the distribution of claims processing staff across overall performance 
categories to determine if its performance appraisal system clearly 
differentiates between overall performance levels, and if necessary 
adjust its system to ensure that it makes clear distinctions. 

Concur: VBA will examine how the ratings of claims processing staff are 
distributed over the performance categories to determine if its 
performance appraisal system clearly differentiates between overall 
performance levels. If necessary, VBA will develop recommendations for 
adjustment of VA's performance appraisal system. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-7215 [email protected]. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Clarita Mrena, Assistant 
Director; Lorin Obler, Analyst-in-Charge; Carolyn S. Blocker; and David 
Forgosh made major contributions to this report; Margaret Braley, Peter 
Del Toro, Chris Dionis, Janice Latimer, and Carol Willett provided 
guidance; Walter Vance assisted with study design; Charles Willson 
helped draft the report; and Roger Thomas provided legal advice. 

[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] These practices are laid out primarily in two GAO reports: 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) and 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). 

[2] 38 U.S.C. ï¿½ 5312(a). 

[3] While new claims processors are on probation, 100 percent of the 
claims work they perform is quality reviewed by a supervisor. After 
their probationary period, only a small sample of their claims is 
quality reviewed. 

[4] Typically, RVSRs are promoted VSRs, although in some instances, VA 
hires RVSRs from outside of VA who have medical or legal experience. 

[5] Staff who teach classes other than centralized training are not 
required to take the week-long Instructor Development Course, although 
they may do so if openings exist. They can also take an 8-hour 
condensed course for regional instructors. 

[6] In 2001, we reported that VBA had spent or obligated about $18.6 
million of the estimated total TPSS program cost of $32 million. See 
GAO, 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). 

[7] VBA defines an experienced VSR or RVSR as one who has been in that 
position for 1 year or more. 

[8] To determine if VSRs and RVSRs in a regional office are generally 
meeting their annual training requirement, the aggregate number of 
training hours completed in a given year by all staff in that office is 
divided by the number of staff in that office. 

[9] According to VBA officials, the board is made up of a mix of 
regional office and central office staff from different VBA business 
lines including Employee Development and Training, Human Resources, the 
Compensation and Pension Service, and the Insurance Service. 

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

[11] In 2001, GAO reported that VBA's TPSS may not fully achieve its 
objectives of providing standardized training to new employees, 
reducing the training period required for new employees, or improving 
claims-processing accuracy and consistency. In the report, we 
recommended actions the agency should consider in providing timely 
standardized training and providing indicators of the impact of TPSS on 
accuracy and consistency. In its technical comments on this report, VA 
indicated it accomplished the first recommendation. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-601]. 

[12] The central office has set a minimum performance level for each 
element that defines the fully successful level of performance. 
Regional offices may set higher fully successful levels for their 
staff, and three of the offices we visited had set a higher level for 
at least one element. Regional offices also have discretion to set the 
level for exceptional performance in each element for their staff. 

[13] See 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). 

[14] In three of the four offices we visited, staff members placed in 
the outstanding and excellent categories receive bonuses, and in one of 
these offices some staff in the fully successful category also receive 
bonuses. 

[15] Officials in the other two offices we visited reported no problems 
with the performance appraisal formula. Officials in one of these 
offices told us the current five-level system provides more flexibility 
than the previous pass/fail system. 

[16] We asked VA for fiscal year 2007 performance appraisal data for 
VSRs and RVSRs nationally to determine whether the distribution of 
staff across overall performance categories is similar at the national 
level. While VA indicated that it collects performance appraisal data 
for regional office staff, the agency was unable to provide us with 
appraisal data specifically for VSRs and RVSRs, as these positions are 
part of a broader job series. 

[17] To determine each office's accuracy performance in fiscal year 
2007, we used data obtained from VBA's Systematic Technical Accuracy 
Review (STAR) system. In an earlier GAO report, Veterans' Benefits: 
Further Changes in VBA's Field Office Structure Could Help Improve 
Disability Claims Processing, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-149] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005), we identified 
problems that affected the use of the STAR data to make distinctions in 
accuracy among regional offices. However, for the purposes of site 
selection for our current review, we judged the STAR data to be 
sufficiently reliable. We made this determination based on a 
sensitivity analysis we did on earlier year data that considered 
sampled cases that were not sent in for STAR review. After this 
analysis we found that even with the existing limitations in the STAR 
data, Milwaukee and Baltimore had higher accuracy scores and Atlanta 
and Portland had lower accuracy scores. Even though the sensitivity 
analysis was done on earlier year data, the ranking of the four offices 
was similar in fiscal year 2007, showing that the offices we deemed to 
have higher accuracy scores in an earlier year still had higher 
accuracy scores in fiscal year 2007 and the same remained true for the 
offices with lower accuracy scores. 

[18] One question we asked the regional offices was whether each course 
on their fiscal year 2007 training plan addressed a core technical 
training topic. For three of the offices, the data we received did not 
cover all training hours provided during the fiscal year, but each 
office provided data on at least 99 percent of its training hours. 

[19] 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). 

[20] 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). 

[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. ***