Veterans' Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor Department
Programs (Letter Report, 10/17/97, GAO/HEHS-98-7).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the use
of two grant funds, the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and
the Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER), administered by
the Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS), focusing on: (1) national funding trends for DVOP and LVER staff
and how funds are allocated to the states; (2) how state performance is
measured; (3) position requirements for DVOP and LVER staff and
characteristics of DVOP and LVER staff; and (4) how DVOP and LVER staff
spend their time and integrate their services with other veterans'
employment service programs, such as the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Counseling Program (VR&C) and the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
for separating service members.
GAO noted that: (1) over a 10-year period, the appropriations for VETS,
when adjusted for inflation, have declined by 11 percent; (2) since
1990, appropriations for the DVOP and LVER grants have not supported the
number of positions authorized by the statutory funding formulas; (3)
states receive their DVOP and LVER grant funding from VETS through
multiyear grants, and funding is estimated by figuring the amount
required to support the number of statutorily determined staff
positions; (4) in allocating DVOP positions to states, the statutory
formula provides one DVOP specialist for each 6,900 veterans in a state
who are either Vietnam-era, post-Vietnam era, or disabled veterans; (5)
the statutory LVER funding provides for a total of 1,600 full-time LVER
staff, and allocation is primarily based on the number of LVER staff as
of January 1, 1987, in each state; (6) when appropriations are not
sufficient to support the number of positions authorized, VETS reduces
each state's allocation proportionately; (7) VETS' performance measures
for states' DVOP and LVER staffing grants focus more on process than
results and require states to provide a higher level of service to
veterans than nonveterans rather than establish goals for absolute
levels of performance; (8) VETS is working to develop new performance
measures under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 that
will put greater emphasis on results, in addition to comparing services
provided to veterans and nonveterans; (9) VETS is uncertain whether it
will establish absolute levels for its performance measures; (10)
federal law prescribes eligibility requirements for appointing LVER
staff and DVOP specialists based on veteran status; (11) 95 percent of
DVOP specialists and 62 percent of LVER staff were disabled veterans;
(12) beyond veteran status, DVOP and LVER staff qualifications,
including educational requirements, differ according to each state's
civil service system requirement; (13) the law prescribes various duties
for DVOP and LVER staff to provide veterans with job search plans and
referrals and job training opportunities; (14) the duties both DVOP and
LVER staff spent the most time on were job search and referral and
intake and assessment; and (15) DVOP and LVER staff reported that they
would like to spend more time performing job search and referral as well
as employer outreach and individual case management.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-98-7
TITLE: Veterans' Employment and Training: Services Provided by
Labor Department Programs
DATE: 10/17/97
SUBJECT: Persons with disabilities
Veterans benefits
Veterans employment programs
Grants to states
Grant administration
Vocational rehabilitation
State-administered programs
IDENTIFIER: DOL Disabled Veterans Outreach Program
DOL Local Veterans Employment Reps Program
VA Transitional Assistance Program
VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives
October 1997
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
- SERVICES PROVIDED BY LABOR
DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
GAO/HEHS-98-7
Veterans' Employment and Training
(205320)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DVOP - Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
GED - general equivalency diploma
LVER - Local Veterans' Employment Representative
TAP - Transition Assistance Program
VA - Department of Veterans Affairs
VETS - Veterans' Employment and Training Service
VR&C - Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Service
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-275189
October 17, 1997
The Honorable Jack Quinn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Benefits
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Congress has made it clear that employment services for veterans
is a national responsibility and has passed legislation providing
this assistance specifically for veterans. Although the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for most veterans' services,
the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) administers programs and other activities, including grants,
designed to help veterans find jobs and job training. The Congress
established VETS under the Office of the Assistant Secretary in 1980
to carry out the national policy set forth in U.S.C. title 38 that
veterans receive employment and training opportunities, giving
priority to disabled veterans and Vietnam-era veterans.\1
VETS, budgeted at about $182 million for fiscal year 1997, funds two
primary veterans' employment assistance grants to states--the
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER).\2 The DVOP and LVER
staff, whose positions are federally funded, are part of states'
employment service systems and provide direct employment services to
eligible veterans. This report responds to your request for
descriptive information on the use of these grant funds.
Specifically, you asked us to obtain information on (1) national
funding trends for DVOP and LVER staff and how funds are allocated to
the states; (2) how state performance is measured; (3) position
requirements for DVOP and LVER staff and characteristics of DVOP and
LVER staff; and (4) how DVOP and LVER staff spend their time and
integrate their services with other veterans' employment service
programs, such as the Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling
Program (VR&C)\3 and the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)\4 for
separating service members.
To address your request, we met with VETS officials responsible for
state grants that support the DVOP and LVER staff. We reviewed
legislation, regulations, program operating procedures, and program
management reports. We visited two states, Colorado and
Pennsylvania--selected to reflect different sizes and regions--to
understand how DVOP and LVER staff work within their employment
service system. We also conducted telephone surveys with all VETS'
directors in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands to obtain state-specific information
about the operation of these two grants.\5 Additionally, we
administered a mail survey to all DVOP and LVER staff (2,862 as of
March 1997) to obtain information about their personal
characteristics, education and training, and military and work
experience as well as how they serve veterans. (Further information
on our scope and methodology is in app. I.)
--------------------
\1 Federal laws pertaining to veterans' issues are in title 38 of the
U.S. Code. The portions relating to the employment and training
services are in chapters 41, 42, and 43.
\2 VETS' fiscal year 1997 appropriation of about $182 million
included $82 million for DVOP specialists and $75 million for LVER
staff. This appropriation also included $23 million for VETS'
administrative costs and $2 million for the National Veterans'
Training Institute, which trains service providers' staff and
managers.
\3 The VR&C program, administered by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, provides certain services and equipment for disabled
veterans that may be required for beginning employment. They may
also receive educational and vocational training and special
rehabilitative services.
\4 TAP activities generally involve workshops on such topics as
conducting successful job searches, career decision-making, current
occupational and labor market conditions, and resum� and cover letter
preparation to help military personnel and their spouses make
decisions as they move from military service to civilian life and to
transfer military experience into a civilian job or career. TAP
operates as a partnership between the Departments of Labor, Defense,
and Veterans Affairs.
\5 For this report, we use the word "states" to refer to the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Over a 10-year period, the appropriations for VETS, when adjusted for
inflation, have declined by 11 percent. Moreover, since 1990,
appropriations for the DVOP and LVER grants have not supported the
number of positions authorized by the statutory funding formulas.
States receive their DVOP and LVER grant funding from VETS through
multiyear grants, and funding is estimated by figuring the amount
required to support the number of statutorily determined staff
positions. In allocating DVOP positions to states, the statutory
formula provides one DVOP specialist for each 6,900 veterans in a
state who are either Vietnam-era, post-Vietnam-era, or disabled
veterans. The statutory LVER funding provides for a total of 1,600
full-time LVER staff, and allocation is primarily based on the number
of LVER staff as of January 1, 1987, in each state. When
appropriations are not sufficient to support the number of positions
authorized, VETS reduces each state's allocation proportionately.
For example, in fiscal year 1997, the appropriation funded 440 fewer
DVOP specialists and 260 fewer LVER staff than authorized by the
statutory formulas.
VETS' performance measures for states' DVOP and LVER staffing grants
focus more on process than results and require states to provide a
higher level of service to veterans than nonveterans rather than
establish goals for absolute levels of performance. Thus, a state
that has a poor level of service to nonveterans would be held to a
lower standard for service to veterans than a state with better
overall performance. For program year 1995, the national job
placement rate for veterans (26.1 percent) exceeded the placement
rate for nonveterans (20.4 percent). VETS is working to develop new
performance measurements under the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 that will put greater emphasis on results, in addition to
comparing services provided to veterans and nonveterans. VETS is
uncertain whether it will establish absolute levels for its
performance measurements.
Federal law prescribes eligibility requirements for appointing LVER
staff and DVOP specialists based on veteran status. For example,
first preference for the appointment of DVOP specialists is given to
qualified disabled veterans of the Vietnam era, and first preference
for LVER staff is given to qualified veterans with service-connected
disabilities. We found that 95 percent of DVOP specialists and 62
percent of LVER staff were disabled veterans. Additionally, 93
percent of DVOP specialists and 84 percent of LVER staff were
Vietnam-era veterans. Beyond veteran status, DVOP and LVER staff
qualifications, including educational requirements, differ according
to each state's civil service system requirements. We found that
half of DVOP specialists had a 4-year college degree and a slightly
higher percentage of LVER staff (56 percent) had at least a 4-year
college degree.
The law prescribes various duties for DVOP and LVER staff to provide
veterans with job search plans and referrals and job training
opportunities. According to our survey, the duties both DVOP and
LVER staff spent the most time on were (1) job search and referral
and (2) intake and assessment. DVOP and LVER staff reported that
they would like to spend more time performing job search and referral
as well as employer outreach and individual case management. Most
clients served by DVOP and LVER staff need minimal assistance, but
DVOP and LVER staff spend relatively more time with clients needing
extensive services, such as case management. Additionally, 70
percent of DVOP specialists and 60 percent of LVER staff reported
that they served VR&C clients, but most DVOP and LVER staff reported
that their VR&C client caseload accounted for less than 5 percent of
all their clients. Fewer DVOP and LVER staff--less than 25
percent--reported that they had TAP duties; 70 percent of these DVOP
specialists and 85 percent of these LVER staff spent between less
than a day to 6 days a month on TAP activities.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
VETS' mission is to help veterans, reservists, and National Guard
members obtain employment and protect their employment rights and
benefits. The key elements of VETS' mission include enforcement of
veterans' preference and reemployment rights, employment and training
assistance, public information services, interagency liaison, and
training for those assisting veterans. VETS provides states with
grants for DVOP and LVER staff to provide veterans and eligible
persons\6 employment and training opportunities, with priority given
to the needs of disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era,
through the states' employment service systems established under the
Wagner-Peyser Act.\7
As part of the DVOP and LVER grant agreements, states must provide or
ensure veterans' priority and other special considerations in the
provision of services to veterans at every point where the public
employment and training delivery system services are available. The
grant agreements provide the following order of priority for serving
veterans: first, special disabled veterans\8 ; then, Vietnam-era
veterans; followed by disabled veterans other than special disabled
veterans; last, all other veterans and eligible persons.
VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network
that includes representation in each of Labor's 10 regions and in
each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans'
Employment and Training administers VETS' activities through regional
administrators and a VETS director in each state.\9 These federally
paid VETS staff are the link between VETS and the states' employment
service system and ensure that states carry out their obligations to
provide service to veterans under various federally funded programs,
including the services provided under the DVOP and LVER grants.
LVER staff were first authorized under the original G.I. Bill, the
Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. DVOP specialists were
initially established by executive order in 1977 and later authorized
by the Veterans' Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980.\10
Although DVOP and LVER staff are employees of their states'
employment service systems, their positions are funded by grants to
the states administered by VETS, and they are to serve veterans
exclusively. Furthermore, the duties of DVOP and LVER staff are
specified by federal law and include
-- outreach to locate veterans,
-- job development for veterans,
-- networking in the community for employment and training
programs,
-- providing labor exchange services to veterans,
-- making referrals to support services, and
-- case management.
The state VETS directors monitor local employment offices to
determine whether DVOP and LVER staff are carrying out these duties.
For example, they examine the performance of assigned DVOP and LVER
staff in such areas as job development assistance, employer visits,
and case management. DVOP and LVER staff have many similar job
duties--such as networking with employers, veterans' organizations,
federal agencies, and community-based organizations. The primary
focus for DVOP specialists is on locating veterans with disabilities
and other barriers to employment and assisting them in removing
barriers and finding jobs and job training opportunities. LVER
staff, on the other hand, are the local employment offices' primary
resource for policies and procedures regarding priority service to
veterans and are responsible for reporting on compliance with laws
and regulations concerning veterans' issues.
States' employment service systems provide priority service for
veterans in a variety of ways. The DVOP and LVER grant agreements
include assurances by states that LVER staff\11 and DVOP specialists
serve eligible veterans exclusively. Under federal law, all state
employment service staff must give priority to veterans over
nonveterans for services; the assignment of DVOP or LVER staff does
not relieve other local employment office staff of their requirement
to provide priority service to veterans. To implement this priority
service, for example, states may place a 24-hour "hold" on a new "job
order" received from an employer until veterans can be identified and
contacted. Generally, states first search their electronic job file
for qualified veteran applicants and then contact the veterans
regarding the employment opportunity.
--------------------
\6 Certain nonveterans, who are dependents of veterans, are also
eligible for priority service. These nonveterans are called
"eligible persons" and include, for example, the spouse of any person
who died of a service-connected disability or the spouse of any
person who has a total disability permanent in nature resulting from
a service-connected disability. For the purposes of this report, we
will use the term "veterans" to include eligible people.
\7 The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 created a national system of public
employment service offices. Federal Wagner-Peyser funds support this
employment service system, which is operated by the states with a
network of over 1,900 local offices providing employment services to
individuals seeking employment and to employers seeking workers.
\8 A special disabled veteran is (1) a veteran who is entitled to
compensation (or who, but for the receipt of military retired pay,
would be entitled to compensation) under laws administered by the VA
for a disability rated at 30 percent or more or (2) a person who was
discharged or released from active duty because of a
service-connected disability.
\9 In larger states, an assistant director is appointed for every
250,000 veterans in the state.
\10 Before the establishment of VETS, the DVOP and LVER grants were
administered by Labor's Employment and Training Administration, which
administers the Wagner-Peyser grants to states.
\11 Full-time LVER staff are assigned to every local office where at
least 1,100 eligible veterans and eligible persons are registered.
Offices with less than 1,100, but at least 350, registered veterans
and eligible persons may be assigned a half-time LVER. The half-time
LVER staff must serve veterans for a minimum of half their time; the
other half may be used for other employment service duties. We found
that 23 percent of LVER staff were in half-time LVER positions.
NATIONAL FUNDING TREND FOR DVOP
AND LVER GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Over a 10-year period, appropriations for VETS,\12 adjusted for
inflation, have declined 11 percent. (See fig. 1.) In comparison,
the inflation-adjusted Wagner-Peyser appropriations for states'
employment service systems declined by 26 percent over the same
10-year period.
Figure 1: VETS' Actual and
Inflation-Adjusted Budget,
Fiscal Years 1987-96
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Appropriation numbers are adjusted for inflation using the
gross domestic product deflator for nondefense spending with 1996 as
the base year.
Source: Data for actual appropriation from VETS; inflation-adjusted
appropriation calculated by GAO.
During fiscal years 1990 through 1997, the amount appropriated for
DVOP and LVER grants did not fund the number of statutorily
authorized DVOP or LVER positions. (See figs. 2 and 3, and see app.
II for actual numbers of DVOP and LVER positions authorized and
funded.) For example, in fiscal year 1997, the number of DVOP
specialist positions funded (1,568) was 78 percent of the statutory
number of positions (2,008), and the number of LVER staff positions
funded (1,340) was 84 percent of the statutory number of positions
(1,600). Furthermore, funding for the DVOP grant, adjusted for
inflation, declined by 19 percent over the past 10 years. The LVER
funding trend was more variable, with increases and decreases over
the same time period, but the inflation-adjusted appropriation showed
a decline of about 8 percent between 1987 and 1996.
Figure 2: Authorized and
Funded DVOP Positions for
Fiscal Years 1990-97
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Funded positions are the number of positions that states
reported they could fill with the appropriated funds.
Source: VETS.
Figure 3: Authorized and
Funded LVER Positions for
Fiscal Years 1990-97
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Funded positions are the number of positions states reported
they could fill with the appropriated funds.
Source: VETS.
--------------------
\12 The VETS appropriation includes funding for the DVOP and LVER
grants as well as for administrative costs and the National Veterans'
Training Institute.
PROCESS USED TO ALLOCATE
DVOP AND LVER FUNDS TO
STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
States receive DVOP and LVER funding from VETS through multiyear
grants, generally for a period of 2 to 5 years.\13 Before the
beginning of each grant period, VETS invites states to apply for DVOP
and LVER funding. At that time, VETS publishes the number of
positions each state should receive according to the statutory
funding level for both DVOP and LVER grants. Based on this
information, states submit requests for funding on a worksheet that
documents, for each grant, the number of positions, the cost of
salaries and benefits, the state's cost per position for DVOP and
LVER staff, and the total funds the state is requesting. As part of
the allocation request, states are required to calculate the
proportion of the DVOP and LVER grants used for administrative and
support expenses.\14 Administrative and support expenses associated
with the DVOP and LVER grants differ across the states. These
expenses include costs such as travel, supplies, a portion of central
office personnel, communications, rent, and utilities. When
appropriations for the DVOP and LVER grants do not support the number
of statutorily authorized positions, each state's share of the
appropriation is calculated on the basis of a proportionate
reduction.\15
Because DVOP and LVER grants are multiyear grants, the grant funds
are adjusted annually. After the first year of a grant period,
states submit a modification or revised request for funds that
includes a new worksheet reflecting updated costs for each year of
the grant cycle. In fiscal year 1995, for example, states requested
funding according to the statutory funding levels. However, in
fiscal year 1996, VETS directed states to submit grant modifications
based on a 5-percent reduction from their initial 1995 grant award.
In fiscal year 1997, VETS directed states to submit proposed
modifications based on VETS' estimated amount for each grant by
state.
After VETS notifies states of their actual grant allocations, the
states must submit state fiscal operating plans that show planned
quarterly DVOP and LVER spending plans. This becomes an important
document as the states proceed through the grant year because VETS
uses these documents to adjust each state's grant amount, if
necessary, during the year. Each quarter, VETS reviews state
obligations and expenditures against state fiscal operating plans.
VETS has the authority to reallocate up to 95 percent of unobligated
DVOP and LVER funds at the end of each quarter\16 from states with
excess funds to states that request additional funding through a
grant modification.\17
--------------------
\13 For the period of our review, VETS' multiyear grant was for
fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1997; VETS' next multiyear grant
period will begin in fiscal year 1998 and run through fiscal year
2000, with an option to extend the grant period for additional years.
\14 To avoid excessive spending, VETS generally limits the percentage
states may use of their DVOP and LVER grant for administrative and
support costs. However, VETS may approve exceptions if a state can
show good cause for support and administrative spending beyond the
cap.
\15 State allocations are adjusted for some DVOP and LVER grant
expenses paid centrally by VETS (postage costs, travel to the
National Veterans' Training Institute, and the payment management
system). Other costs may be subtracted before VETS allocates the
grant funding to the states. For example, if a state is conducting a
pilot project that VETS has required or approved, VETS will put aside
the cost of that pilot for that particular state before allocating
funds to the states for DVOP and LVER staff. For fiscal years 1995
and 1996, VETS also awarded some states additional funds to conduct
TAP activities.
\16 According to Veterans' Program Letter Number 9-89, VETS can
recapture 95 percent of all DVOP and LVER unobligated funds at the
end of each quarter with the following three exceptions: (1) if a
state can document and certify that an amount was expended but not
reflected in the official cost accounting reports, (2) if the state
can document and certify that an amount was not obligated during a
quarter due to extenuating circumstances and the funds will be
utilized later in the fiscal year, and (3) if a state's initial
request for funds was unilaterally reduced due to a limitation in
funding availability.
\17 States can also carry unexpended fourth quarter funds into the
first quarter of the new fiscal year for the purpose of funding DVOP
and LVER staff at approved levels. VETS continues to go through its
budgetary adjustment process for the first three quarters of each
fiscal year, recapturing 95 percent of unobligated funds but does not
generally recapture and redistribute fourth-quarter funds that can be
used under its "fifth-quarter" funding authority.
DVOP STATE ALLOCATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
VETS uses the formula specified in the law--one DVOP specialist for
each 6,900 veterans residing in the state who are either veterans of
the Vietnam era, veterans who first entered active duty as a member
of the armed forces after May 7, 1975, or disabled veterans--together
with cost information from each state to determine the amount of
funding for each state. First, VETS determines (1) the number of
veterans residing in a state who are Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era
veterans and (2) the number of disabled veterans residing in a
state--those receiving either VA compensation or receiving military
disability compensation through a medical discharge or retirement.
These two factors are added--which may result in some double
counting--and the sum is divided by 6,900 to determine the number of
DVOP specialists for the state. The state's funding allocation is
computed by multiplying the number of DVOP specialists by the state's
cost per position. This allocation is then adjusted proportionately
on the basis of the actual funds appropriated--which has generally
supported fewer positions than the number of positions determined by
statute. For example, the state with the largest DVOP population,
California, should have had 256 DVOP specialists by statute in fiscal
year 1997 but projected that funding would support 180 positions, or
30 percent fewer. (See app. III for an example of the formula
calculation and the underlying data used to calculate the number of
statutory DVOP positions for fiscal year 1997.)
The cost per DVOP position varies from state to state. In fiscal
year 1997, the average projected cost per DVOP position was $51,431
but ranged from $24,222 to $67,333. Of the 50 states, those with the
highest costs per DVOP position (over $65,000) included Alaska,
Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin; those with the lowest
costs per DVOP position were Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, and
West Virginia. The variation in cost across the states results from
the differences in each state's salary and administrative and support
expenses. For example, for fiscal year 1997, the average
administrative and support costs for the DVOP grant were 25.3 percent
of the grant but were as high as about 35 percent in Wisconsin and as
low as 18 percent in Alaska and Delaware (see figs. 4 and 5). (See
app. IV for--by state, for fiscal year 1997--the DVOP grant award,
the number of projected DVOP positions, cost per DVOP position, and
percentage of administrative and support costs.)
Figure 4: Cost per DVOP
Position, Fiscal Year 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: VETS.
Figure 5: DVOP Administration
and Support Expenses as a
Percentage of the Total Grant,
Fiscal Year 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: VETS.
DVOP positions are not distributed in proportion to the civilian
labor force because the relevant veteran population varies across the
states. For example, although nationally the DVOP population\18 was
10.3 percent of the total civilian labor force, some states had a
DVOP population that was 12 percent or more of their civilian labor
force--including Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia,
Washington, and West Virginia. States with a lower percentage--less
than 9 percent--included Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Utah,
and Wisconsin. (These percentages, by state, are included in app.
III.)
--------------------
\18 DVOP population is used here to be the veterans' population in
the DVOP formula--Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans plus
disabled veterans.
LVER STATE ALLOCATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Beginning with fiscal year 1988, the law specifies that LVER grant
funds available to states should be sufficient to support the
appointment of 1,600 full-time LVER staff and the states'
administrative expenses associated with the appointment of those
staff. It also sets forth a two-part LVER formula for allocating the
LVER staff positions among the states. The first part of the formula
provides that each state receive the number of LVER positions it had
on board as of January 1, 1987, plus 1 additional position, bringing
the national total to 1,439. The second part of the formula dictates
how the remaining 161 positions will be allocated across the states
by taking an average of three factors relating to the number of
veterans in a state, the number of veterans registered for employment
assistance, and the number of full-service local employment service
offices.\19 Like the DVOP funding, VETS adjusts state allocations
proportionately according to actual appropriations. For example, the
state with the most LVER positions by statute--California, with 121
positions--projected that it could fund 100.5 LVER positions with the
fiscal year 1997 appropriation. (See app. V for an example of the
LVER formula calculation and the underlying data used to calculate
the number of LVER formula positions for fiscal year 1997.)
The cost per LVER position varies across the states. The projected
fiscal year 1997 cost per LVER position averaged $54,729 and ranged
from $25,625 to $77,235. Of the 50 states, those with the highest
cost (above $71,000) per LVER position included Colorado,
Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin; those states with the lowest
cost per LVER position were Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, and
West Virginia. The variation in cost across the states results from
the differences in each state's salary and administrative and support
costs. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the average administrative
and support costs for LVER grants was 24.4 percent of the total grant
and ranged from about 13 percent in Louisiana to about 34 percent in
Wisconsin. (See figs. 6 and 7.)
Figure 6: Cost per LVER
Position, Fiscal Year 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: VETS.
Figure 7: LVER Administration
and Support Expenses as a
Percentage of the Total Grant,
Fiscal Year 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: VETS.
(See app. VI for--by state, for fiscal year 1997--the LVER grant
award, the number of projected positions, cost per position, and
percentage of administrative and support costs.)
--------------------
\19 First, VETS calculates, for each state, the percentage of
veterans residing in each state in relation to the total number of
veterans in the United States. Next, VETS calculates the percentage
of all veterans in each state who have registered for assistance in
the state's local employment service offices in relation to the total
number of veterans in the United States who have registered for
assistance in local service employment offices. The last percentage
calculation is the percentage of each state's full-service local
employment service offices in relation to the total number of
full-service local employment services offices in the United States.
Once these three percentages have been determined for each state,
VETS averages the percentages for each state and applies that average
to the 161 positions.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS FOR
DVOP AND LVER STAFFING GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Performance standards for the DVOP and LVER grants are measured in
terms of providing a higher level of service and achieving better
results for veterans than is achieved by a state's employment service
system for its nonveteran applicants. In recent testimony,\20 we
criticized VETS' current performance standards because they focus
more on process than on results and noted that performance is
evaluated only in relative, not absolute, terms. VETS officials are
aware of weaknesses in the current performance measurement system and
are currently assessing better ways to measure services provided to
veterans and to evaluate the impact of those services. VETS would
like to put greater emphasis on results, but VETS is uncertain
whether it will develop measures based on absolute levels of service
to veterans. Several states are conducting pilot programs to measure
alternative ways of measuring performance; however, states are being
held accountable to the current performance standards during the
pilot period.
--------------------
\20 Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Focusing on Program
Results to Improve Agency Performance (GAO/T-HEHS-97-129, May 7,
1997).
VETS PERFORMANCE MEASURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
As required by federal law, VETS has established performance
standards to determine state compliance with requirements to provide
employment services to veterans, evaluating states in five service
categories: (1) veterans placed in or obtaining employment, (2)
Vietnam-era veterans and special disabled veterans placed in jobs on
the Federal Contractor Job Listing, (3) veterans counseled, (4)
veterans placed in training, and (5) veterans who received some
reportable service. To ensure priority service to veterans, VETS
expects veterans to be served at a rate exceeding the service to
nonveterans. Veterans and eligible persons should be served at a
rate 15 percent higher than nonveterans, Vietnam-era veterans at a
rate 20 percent higher, and disabled veterans at a rate 25 percent
higher. Placement rates for special disabled veterans in jobs listed
by federal contractors should also be 25 percent higher than the rate
for nonveterans. Thus, if a state's placement rate for nonveterans
was 8.55 percent, the placement rate for veterans should be 9.83, or
15 percent higher than the nonveteran placement rate.
For program year 1995,\21 the national placement rate for nonveterans
was 20.4 percent and so the veterans' placement standard was 23.5
percent. The actual placement rate for veterans was 26.1 percent,
which exceeded the standard. (See table 1.) The only area where a
substantial number of states failed to meet the standards was in
"reportable services." In over half of these cases, the state's
standard was at 100 percent or more. Iowa, for instance, categorizes
formulating employment development plans--which also involves
counseling and interviewing--as a reportable service; because this is
done for every employment service client, it is impossible for
veterans to be served at a higher rate than nonveterans. (See app.
VII for program year 1995 performance, by state, for all five service
categories.)
Table 1
VETS National Performance Standards and
Results, Program Year 1995
Standa
rd Actual
(perce (perce
nt) nt)
------------------------------------------------------ ------ ------
Placed/obtained employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans and eligibles 23.5 26.1
Vietnam-era veterans 24.5 25.2
Disabled veterans 25.5 30.5
Federal Contractor Job Listing placements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam-era veterans N/A 2.6
Special disabled veterans N/A 4.4
Counseled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans and eligibles 4.3 7.2
Vietnam-era veterans 4.5 7.6
Disabled veterans 4.7 11.4
Placed in training
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans and eligibles 0.6 1.1
Vietnam-era veterans 0.7 1.2
Disabled veterans 0.7 2.3
Received reportable services
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans and eligibles 87.1 82.4
Vietnam-era veterans 90.9 82.3
Disabled veterans 94.6 85.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: N/A = not available.
Source: VETS data.
States must meet the minimum goals but can negotiate higher goals
with the VETS state director.\22 For program year 1995, 24 states
negotiated higher goals for one or more of the veteran groups. For
example, New York increased each goal by 1 percentage point simply
because the state wanted to do a bit better than the floor levels
established by VETS. Idaho increased all of its performance standard
goals by 5 percentage points and met its goals. Wisconsin had
increased all goals but failed to meet several performance standards
during program year 1995; for program year 1996, Wisconsin
renegotiated its goals to the minimum required level.
The current system for measuring service to veterans sets the base
standard to the number of nonveteran applicants served.
Consequently, a state that has a poor level of service to nonveterans
would be held to a lower standard for service to veterans than a
state with a better overall performance. For example, in one state
with a low placement rate for nonveteran applicants (5.62 percent)
for program year 1995, the state was required to place 363 veteran
applicants, or 6.47 percent of its total veteran applicants. In this
instance, the state met its performance standard by placing 416 of
its veteran applicants. On the other hand, a state with a higher
placement rate for nonveterans did not meet its performance standard
even though it placed nearly 22 percent of its veteran applicants.
(See fig. 8.)
Figure 8: Placement Rates for
Nonveterans and
Veterans/Eligibles, Program
Year 1995
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: VETS.
VETS officials monitor state compliance with the performance
standards and are required to report annually to the Congress on the
states' success in meeting the performance standards. If a state
does not meet a performance standard, VETS officials must decide
either to accept the state's "good cause" explanation or to require a
corrective action plan. During program year 1995, VETS determined
that all but 15 states met their performance standards.\23
Failure to meet one or more of the quantitative performance
standards, however, does not itself constitute failure to provide
priority services to veterans. State and regional VETS officials
identify other factors that may affect the delivery of quality
services before making any noncompliance determinations. For
example, a state's placement rate for nonveteran applicants may be
artificially inflated. In particular, one state has numerous migrant
seasonal farmworkers registered at local employment service offices,
thereby establishing an artificially high baseline against which
placement rates for veterans are measured.
--------------------
\21 While DVOP and LVER funds are appropriated on a fiscal year
basis, the grants operate on a program year that runs from July 1 to
June 30. For example, program year 1995 started on July 1, 1995, and
ended on June 30, 1996.
\22 The minimum performance standards were used to calculate the
national data in table 1, and this information was provided by VETS.
Since each state VETS director negotiates the standards with the
state employment service system, the national data are not a true
compilation. Additionally, the information was derived from a report
that blocked the Federal Contractor Job Listing placement data;
therefore, Federal Contractor Job Listing standards could not be
calculated.
\23 Of these, 14 states were able to show good cause for their
inability to meet the standards (Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Utah, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia). The remaining
state--Wisconsin--provided VETS with an acceptable corrective action
plan.
VETS PLANS TO REVISE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
VETS has directed its field staff and state partners to provide input
regarding the development, piloting, and evaluation of new
performance measurement systems. VETS officials have characterized
the present measurement system as activity- and volume-driven,
providing states little incentive to focus services on those veterans
who are marginally job ready or are most in need of intensive
employability development services. According to the Acting
Assistant Secretary for VETS, absolute levels of performance would be
desirable, but it would be difficult to establish absolute standards
that could take into account variances in state situations such as
economic factors and geographic size. However, VETS is currently
testing new ways of measuring performance. The states that are
piloting new initiatives are Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah. The proposed implementation
plans for each pilot must include intended start and ending dates, a
full 12 months of data, and pilot evaluation activity completed by
July 31, 1998. During the pilot testing period, states are still to
be evaluated using the current performance standards and goals.
DVOP AND LVER POSITION
REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Federal eligibility requirements for appointing LVER and DVOP staff
are based on veteran status. The law requires that each DVOP
specialist be a veteran, and preference is given to disabled
Vietnam-era veterans. If a qualified disabled Vietnam-era veteran is
not available, preference is given to other disabled veterans. If no
qualified disabled veteran is available, the appointment may be given
to an otherwise qualified veteran. LVER staff appointed on or after
July 1, 1988, must be veterans.\24 Preference for LVER staff
appointments is first accorded to veterans with service-connected
disabilities; then, if no such disabled veteran is available, to
qualified eligible veterans; and, if no such eligible veteran is
available, then to qualified eligible nonveterans.
Because DVOP and LVER staff are state employees, states are
responsible for hiring staff, but the state VETS director is
responsible for ensuring that the selected DVOP and LVER staff meet
the federal eligibility requirements. When filling DVOP and LVER
staff positions, states generally make a priority list from qualified
and available candidates and, if candidates cannot be found that fit
the federal eligibility requirements, the state would present the
list to the state VETS director for concurrence. For example, one
state VETS director said that he has never approved a nondisabled
veteran for a DVOP specialist position, but he has approved a
non-Vietnam-era veteran for one.
In addition to federal eligibility requirements regarding veteran
status, DVOP and LVER staff are hired in accordance with each state's
civil service merit system, which may include other position
requirements and vary from state to state. Most states have
educational requirements for both DVOP and LVER positions, usually
requiring a Bachelor's degree. (See fig. 9.) Over half the states
(57 percent) required a 4-year college degree for LVER staff, and 44
percent of the states required a 4-year college degree for DVOP
specialists; however, 15 states had no educational requirements for
DVOP specialists, and 12 states had no educational requirements for
LVER staff.
Figure 9: State Educational
Requirements for DVOP and LVER
Staff
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: GED = general equivalency diploma.
Source: GAO survey and interviews of state VETS directors.
The majority of states required prior work experience, but generally
states allowed the substitution of job experience for educational
requirements or vice versa. For example, in New Mexico, the minimum
qualification is a high school or general equivalency diploma (GED)
plus any combination of college education and experience in social
welfare, employment, manpower programs, or veterans programs,
equivalent to 4 years. Delaware has no specific educational or
experience requirements, but the job announcement requires that the
applicants know the principles of interviewing and be able to
communicate effectively both orally and in writing. A written
examination is also given, and interviews are granted on the basis of
applicants' scores. Minnesota has no educational or experience
requirements--nor has it any testing requirements.
The LVER position generally had slightly higher requirements. For
example, in Hawaii, a Bachelor's degree was required for both the
DVOP and LVER staff positions, but the DVOP specialist position
required 1-1/2 years' experience (in employment services, personnel
administration, or related fields and/or professional experience in
social work or related fields), while the LVER staff position
required 3-1/2 years' experience. In Illinois, the DVOP specialist
needed 1 year of college or equivalent experience, and the LVER staff
needed 2 years of college or equivalent experience. And in South
Carolina, there were no educational or prior work experience
requirements for the DVOP specialists; however, minimum requirements
for LVER staff were a Bachelor's degree and 2 years' experience in
employment security program areas, 1 year of which must have been in
an administrative capacity; or a high school diploma and 6 years in
employment security program areas, 1 year of which must have been in
a supervisory or administrative capacity.
DVOP and LVER staff salaries varied from state to state. For
example, at the time we obtained our information, of the 50 states,
the starting salary for DVOP specialists ranged from $15,768 in
Louisiana to $30,438 in Colorado, with the average starting salary at
$21,846.\25 The full performance salary for DVOP specialists ranged
from $23,650 in South Dakota to $46,128 in Colorado, with the average
at $32,308. The starting salary for LVER staff ranged from $15,768
in Louisiana to $32,544 in Hawaii, with the average starting salary
at $23,001. The full-performance salary of LVER staff ranged from
$23,650 in South Dakota to $56,061 in Colorado, with an average of
$34,739. (See fig. 10, and see app. VIII for starting and
full-performance DVOP and LVER staff salaries by state.)
Figure 10: DVOP and LVER Staff
Average Starting and
Full-Performance Salaries
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO surveys and interviews of state VETS directors.
--------------------
\24 Prior to this date, LVER staff were not required to be veterans.
Nonveteran LVER staff already employed were "grandfathered" and
allowed to keep their LVER positions. Six percent of the LVER staff
reported they were not veterans.
\25 The range of salaries is representative of the 50 states; the
averages represent the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We did not include the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in the ranges because
Puerto Rico consistently had the lowest salaries.
DVOP AND LVER STAFF
CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
As federal law prescribes, virtually all DVOP specialists, at the
time of our survey, were disabled, Vietnam-era veterans, but a
slightly lower percentage of LVER staff were disabled, Vietnam-era
veterans. All DVOP specialists were veterans and nearly all--95
percent--were disabled veterans. Ninety-three percent of DVOP
specialists were Vietnam-era veterans. Nearly all LVER staff were
veterans (94 percent), and 62 percent were disabled veterans.
Although federal law does not prescribe that LVER staff be
Vietnam-era veterans, 84 percent of all LVER staff were. DVOP and
LVER staff had primarily served in the military for either 4 years or
less, or 20 years or more. (See fig. 11.) Many DVOP and LVER staff
(33 and 40 percent, respectively) had separated or retired from
active military service during the 1970s. (See fig. 12.)
Figure 11: DVOP and LVER
Staff--Length of Military
Service, as of April/May 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Figure 12: DVOP and LVER
Staff--Decade Separated/Retired
From Active Duty, as of
April/May 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Half of all DVOP specialists had a 4-year college degree, and a
slightly higher percentage of all LVER staff (56 percent) had a
4-year degree. (See fig. 13.) Many of these DVOP and LVER staff had
some graduate school training, and nearly 10 percent of both DVOP and
LVER staff had obtained Master's degrees.
Figure 13: Educational
Attainment of DVOP and LVER
Staff, as of April/May 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Over half of the DVOP specialists and 46 percent of LVER staff
reported that they had been in their positions for less than 5 years.
A quarter of all DVOP specialists and about a third of all LVER staff
had been in their positions more than 5 but less than 10 years.
Roughly similar proportions of DVOP specialists (12 percent) and LVER
staff (10 percent) had been in their positions over 15 years.
Generally, DVOP and LVER staff were white, male, and over 45. For
DVOP specialists, 9 percent reported that they were of Spanish or
Hispanic descent, 20 percent were African American, and 71 percent
were white. For LVER staff, 7 percent reported that they were of
Spanish or Hispanic descent, 13 percent were African American, and 81
percent were white. Additionally, the vast majority of DVOP
specialists (94 percent) and LVER staff (92 percent) were male. Few
DVOP and LVER staff were under the age of 40, and about a third of
DVOP and LVER staff were aged 46 to 50. (See fig. 14.)
Figure 14: Ages of DVOP and
LVER Staff, as of April/May
1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
DVOP AND LVER STAFF DUTIES AND
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Although the authorizing legislation lists many job duties for DVOP
and LVER staff serving veterans, DVOP and LVER staff reported
spending the majority of their time on two duties. Most clients
served by DVOP and LVER staff need minimal assistance, but DVOP and
LVER staff spend relatively more time with clients needing extensive
services like case management. DVOP and LVER staff work with
employers, veterans' organizations, federal agencies, and
community-based organizations to match veterans with jobs and
training opportunities. For example, as a part of networking efforts
with other veterans' employment services, DVOP and LVER staff work
with VR&C clients to find employment opportunities, and some
participate in TAP activities for separating service members.
FEW ACTIVITIES PREDOMINATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
According to our survey, the two duties that both DVOP and LVER staff
spent the most time on were (1) job search and referral and (2)
intake and assessment. (See table 2.)
Table 2
Activities on Which DVOP and LVER Staff
Spent Most of Their Time, as of April/
May 1997
(Numbers in percent)
Activity DVOP LVER
------------------------------------------------------ ------ ------
Job search and referral 71.7 76.7
Intake and assessment 55.3 61.7
Outreach activities to locate and assist veterans 23.6 2.8
Job development for a specific veteran 18.9 16.6
Vocational guidance (labor market information) 16.5 20.2
Veterans' counseling (choice, change, adjustment) 15.9 13.6
Referral to other services for a veteran's specific 15.9 12.0
needs
Individual case management (case file) 14.9 7.5
Employer outreach (such as federal contractors, 13.8 13.3
federal/state/local government, private industry)
Coordinate and/or facilitate the TAP workshops 7.9 3.0
Coordinating with VA on VR&C clients 6.3 1.3
Networking within the local community on behalf of 6.0 5.2
veterans
Career counseling 4.5 3.4
Monitoring and reporting on veterans' services 2.0 15.2
Functionally supervising the provision of veterans' 1.3 24.2
services within the local employment services office
Developing apprenticeship and on-the-job training 0.6 0.7
opportunities
Educating employment service staff on services to 0.4 3.5
veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Representative of their different job duties, DVOP specialists' third
most time-consuming activity was outreach activities to locate and
assist veterans, while LVER staff reported that functionally
supervising the provision of veterans' services within their local
employment service office was the third most time-consuming activity.
Even though job search and referral was reported by both DVOP and
LVER staff as the activity on which they spent the most time, they
reported that they would like to have more time for this activity.
The DVOP and LVER staff also reported that they needed more time for
employer outreach and individual case management. Additionally, DVOP
and LVER staff reported spending about 83 percent of their time on
their top three activities.
In response to our survey, more than half of DVOP and LVER staff
provided unsolicited comments. Several comments related to needing
more time to perform certain duties. For example, one respondent
commented that he is often "spread too thinly" to do an adequate job
in case management and must concentrate on serving the walk-in
traffic because the local employment office staff has dwindled as a
result of budget reductions. Another respondent offered a similar
comment regarding time for employer outreach; he noted that, because
of office downsizing, he was unable to visit employers and had to
rely on the telephone to perform outreach. Another respondent stated
that it is a struggle to get the necessary time for outreach
activities because the local office manager wants the staff in the
office attending to veterans. Additionally, although the law
specifies that DVOP specialists provide assistance to veterans
exclusively and VETS' policy requires that LVER staff (except for
half-time LVER staff) serve veterans exclusively, DVOP and LVER
staff--about 8 percent of the sampled respondents--noted that they
were required to provide employment services to nonveterans. (See
app. IX for a content analysis of a sample of DVOP and LVER survey
comments.)
CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2
DVOP and LVER staff classified the proportion of their clients into
three levels of need. Level I clients were defined as job ready and
able to serve themselves; level II clients were those that needed
minimal information and direction such as assistance with job search,
resume preparation, or interview skills; and level III clients had
barriers to employment, needing extensive services like case
management. DVOP and LVER staff mainly served level II clients (44
and 47 percent, respectively), but DVOP specialists served more level
III clients (28 percent) than did LVER staff (21 percent). However,
DVOP and LVER staff spent relatively more time with level III clients
(40 and 34 percent, respectively)--those needing more extensive
assistance--than with level I clients (20 and 21 percent,
respectively). (See figs. 15 and 16.)
Figure 15: DVOP Client
Characteristics and Time
Allocated to Clients by DVOP
Specialists, as of April/May
1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Figure 16: LVER Client
Characteristics and Time
Allocated to Clients by LVER
Staff, as of April/May 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
MANY DVOP AND LVER STAFF
SERVE VR&C CLIENTS; FEWER
WORK WITH TAP
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.3
About 70 percent of DVOP specialists and 60 percent of LVER staff
serve VR&C clients;\26 however, individual DVOP and LVER staff
reported serving relatively few VR&C clients in the 6-month period
covered by our survey. Sixty percent of DVOP specialists served
seven or fewer VR&C clients during this period, and 70 percent of
LVER staff served seven or fewer VR&C clients. State VETS directors
explained that since a memorandum of understanding was signed August
1, 1995, between VETS and VR&C, networking efforts between DVOP and
LVER staff and VR&C staff have generally improved. They said a point
of contact is usually established within the state's employment
service office and this individual obtains information from VR&C
regarding clients who are job ready; the point of contact then refers
the client to the appropriate DVOP or LVER staff in the area where
the client would like to work. One respondent said that, since the
latest agreement between VETS and VR&C, there is better cooperation
between VR&C staff and the DVOP and LVER staff; this allows all
parties to do the work for which they are most qualified--the VR&C
staff are specialists in counseling and providing training, and the
DVOP and LVER staff have the contacts with local employers and other
advocates to help veterans find gainful employment. At the time of
our survey, four states had 90 percent or more of their staff
providing some assistance to VR&C clients, while six states had less
than half their staff providing some assistance to VR&C clients.
(See fig. 17.)
Figure 17: Percentage of DVOP
and LVER Staff Assisting VR&C
Clients, as of April/May 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
Less than a quarter of both DVOP and LVER staff performed TAP duties.
Seventy percent of those DVOP specialists and 85 percent of those
LVER staff spent up to 6 days per month on TAP activities. TAP
operates as a partnership between the Departments of Labor, Defense,
and Veterans Affairs, and its activities generally involve conducting
workshops to help military personnel and their spouses make decisions
as they move from military service to civilian life and to help
transfer military experience into a civilian job or career.
Workshops include instruction in conducting successful job searches,
career decision-making, current occupational and labor market
conditions, and resum� and cover letter preparation. A respondent to
our survey noted that TAP is vital for military members separating
from the service and there is a high success rate of veterans finding
jobs that have had TAP classes. Another respondent noted that both
programs--VR&C and TAP--are invaluable and result in putting
informed, productive workers into the labor pool or directly into
jobs with employers. Because TAP activities are related to the
presence of military bases in a state, nine states at the time of our
survey had relatively few staff engaged in TAP activities, while nine
states had 30 percent or more of their DVOP and LVER staff engaged in
some TAP activities. (See fig. 18.)
Figure 18: Percentage of DVOP
and LVER Staff Providing TAP
Assistance, as of April/May
1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO survey of DVOP and LVER staff.
--------------------
\26 VR&C clients are veterans who have been identified by VA as
having a 20-percent or higher service-connected disability and having
an employment handicap--defined as an impairment of a veteran's
ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment. Veterans with
a 10-percent service-connected disability may also be eligible for
VR&C services if they have a serious employment handicap. Veterans
found eligible for VR&C service can receive up to 48 months of
benefits during a 12-year period. While in the VR&C program,
veterans receive services and equipment that may be required for
beginning employment. They may also receive educational and
vocational training and special rehabilitative services.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
In commenting on our draft report, the Assistant Secretary-designate
said that Labor had no disagreement with the information it
contained. He suggested three minor wording changes to help clarify
information, and we incorporated these changes, as appropriate, in
the report. Furthermore, in reacting to comments on our
questionnaire from DVOP and LVER staff, Labor said that VETS does not
allow DVOP and LVER staff to provide services to nonveterans and will
recapture funds from states if office reviews uncover evidence of
this activity. Labor also commented that our report showed a number
of DVOP and LVER staff responding that their computer capability was
insufficient, and VETS said that it will continue to encourage states
to address this issue. Finally, Labor noted that comments indicated
improved coordination between DVOP and LVER staff and the VR&C
program. The Department's comments are printed in appendix XI.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will
be made available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202)
512-7003. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix XII.
Sincerely yours,
Carlotta C. Joyner
Director, Education and
Employment Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
In designing our study, we obtained legislation, regulations, and
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) directives regarding
the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) grants to states. We met with VETS
officials responsible for administering the grants, who provided us
documentation regarding the DVOP and LVER appropriations, program
operating procedures, program management reports, and information
about how funds are allocated to states. Because VETS does not
maintain centralized, historical files on DVOP and LVER grants,
officials could not provide us reports indicating the number of DVOP
and LVER positions that were actually funded for past fiscal years
nor could they provide historical documents on the number of
statutorily required positions by state. From their budget
documents, VETS officials provided the number of statutorily required
positions for fiscal years 1990 through 1997 at the time VETS' budget
was submitted.\27 VETS also provided the total number of positions
states reported that they could support with the DVOP and LVER grant
appropriations rather than the actual number of positions funded.
To understand how DVOP and LVER grants are implemented at the state
level, we visited two states, Colorado and Pennsylvania, interviewing
state and regional VETS directors as well as state employment service
system officials, including DVOP and LVER staff. We also telephoned
the VETS directors in each of the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (collectively referred
to in this report as "the states") to obtain state-specific
information about the operation of the DVOP and LVER grants in all
states. We conducted these telephone interviews during December 1996
and January 1997. We obtained information such as the salaries for
DVOP and LVER staff, state qualification requirements for DVOP and
LVER staff, state compliance with VETS performance standards, and
state implementation of the memorandum of understanding between VETS
and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program (VR&C).
To obtain information about the characteristics of DVOP and LVER
staff and how they spend their time, we surveyed all DVOP and LVER
staff. Because DVOP and LVER staff are state employees, VETS could
not tell us the number of staff at a particular time; consequently,
there was no database containing the names and addresses of all DVOP
and LVER staff. We obtained a listing of DVOP and LVER staff who had
attended the National Veterans' Training Institute and verified and
updated the listing with each state VETS director as well as the
state administrators of each state's employment service system.
Surveys were sent to a total of 2,862 DVOP and LVER staff--those on
board as of March 1997--almost evenly divided between DVOP
specialists and LVER staff. By May 30, 1997, nearly 96 percent of
the DVOP and LVER staff had responded to the survey.
More than half of the survey respondents provided additional comments
at the end of the survey document, and we analyzed the content of a
sample of these comments. An initial random pretest of 5 percent
(76) was selected and coded independently by two analysts to reduce
coder bias and ambiguity in making judgments in determining the
categories. For the content analysis, a total of 25 percent (378) of
the 1,513 surveys with comments were randomly selected and coded into
14 categories. Examples of typical comments and a quantitative
content analysis of the comments are in appendix IX.
We conducted our work between June 1996 and July 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
DVOP AND LVER AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED POSITIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1990-97
DVOP
specialist DVOP
s specialist LVER staff LVER staff
Year authorized s funded authorized funded
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1990 1,881 1,786 1,600 1,538
1991 1,883 1,766 1,600 1,500
1992 1,885 1,702 1,600 1,499
1993 1,885 1,843 1,600 1,566
1994 1,884 1,845 1,600 1,568
1995 1,968 1,698 1,600 1,454
1996 1,999 1,568 1,600 1,326
1997 2,008 1,568 1,600 1,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: VETS.
--------------------
\27 For fiscal year 1997, the number of statutorily required DVOP
positions provided to us by VETS was 2,008. When we requested the
VETS documentation of its DVOP position allocation, the total was
2,044. VETS officials explained that the difference occurred because
the initial allocation computation was done in January 1996 and the
DVOP population data used were subsequently updated, which revised
the number. However, they commented that the revised number was not
used in any actual VETS allocation and that the DVOP grant
appropriation funded fewer DVOP positions than either of these
figures.
STATUTORY FORMULA FOR DVOP
SPECIALIST POSITIONS AND STATUTORY
POSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
========================================================= Appendix III
To determine the number of DVOP specialists authorized for each
state, a sum is taken of (1) the number of veterans residing in a
state who are Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans and (2) the
state's number of disabled veterans--those veterans residing in a
state who are receiving either Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
compensation or military disability compensation through either a
medical discharge or retirement. These disabled veterans could also
be included in the number of Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans.
This sum represents the "DVOP population" and is divided by 6,900 to
determine the number of DVOP specialists authorized per state by
U.S.C. title 38. For example, for fiscal year 1997, Connecticut had
136,000 Vietnam- and post-Vietnam-era veterans and 23,368 disabled
veterans, who, added together, represent a DVOP population of
159,368. This number, when divided by 6,900, gives Connecticut 23
DVOP specialist positions according to the title 38 formula.
VETS publishes the number of states' statutory positions for the
first year of a multiyear grant period. While VETS recalculates the
formula positions for each remaining year within the grant period for
its own budget estimating purposes, it does not publish these
statutory funding levels each year. Because VETS could not provide
the calculations used for the fiscal year 1995 grants, the
information in table III.1 shows the most recent data provided by
VETS for the number of authorized positions in fiscal year 1997. At
the time VETS submitted its fiscal year 1997 congressional budget
request, the number of statutory positions was 2,008. For this
table, the subsequent number of statutory positions is 2,044.
However, VETS officials noted that this revised number has not been
used in any staffing decisions by VETS because the appropriation for
fiscal year 1997 was well below the amount that could have supported
the number of statutory positions.
Table III.1
Statutory DVOP Positions for Fiscal Year
1997
Veteran population
--------------------------------------
1997 DVOP DVOP
Vietnam-era and specialist population
Stat post-Vietnam- 1997 DVOP s vs. labor
e Total era Disabled population authorized force (%)
---- -------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alab 427,000 187,000 49,352 236,352 34 11.3
ama
Alas 65,000 42,000 8,265 50,265 7 15.6
ka
Ariz 459,000 223,000 47,900 270,900 39 11.9
ona
Arka 258,000 108,000 30,185 138,185 20 11.2
nsas
Cali 2,818,00 1,559,000 205,592 1,764,592 256 11.1
for 0
nia
Colo 385,000 201,000 41,466 242,466 35 11.3
rado
Conn 339,000 136,000 23,368 159,368 23 9.2
ect
icu
t
Dela 78,000 35,000 6,648 41,648 6 10.7
ware
Dist 50,000 20,000 5,562 25,562 4 9.6
rict
of
Col
umb
ia
Flor 1,709,00 628,000 187,827 815,827 118 11.4
ida 0
Geor 685,000 357,000 71,466 428,466 62 11.1
gia
Hawa 116,000 57,000 11,248 68,248 10 11.6
ii
Idah 112,000 51,000 11,383 62,383 9 9.8
o
Illi 1,074,00 453,000 58,589 511,589 74 8.4
nois 0
Indi 593,000 267,000 39,649 306,649 44 9.9
ana
Iowa 291,000 121,000 19,630 140,630 20 8.7
Kans 263,000 116,000 22,121 138,121 20 10.0
as
Kent 367,000 163,000 34,819 197,819 29 10.3
ucky
Loui 378,000 166,000 33,936 199,936 29 9.9
sia
na
Main 153,000 72,000 16,264 88,264 13 13.2
e
Mary 530,000 252,000 42,466 294,466 43 10.6
land
Mass 594,000 231,000 68,669 299,669 43 9.3
ach
use
tts
Mich 949,000 434,000 57,462 491,462 71 10.1
igan
Minn 462,000 209,000 36,750 245,750 36 9.2
eso
ta
Miss 233,000 98,000 25,177 123,177 18 9.7
iss
ipp
i
Miss 586,000 253,000 43,813 296,813 43 10.4
ouri
Mont 95,000 41,000 10,258 51,258 7 11.2
ana
Nebr 168,000 72,000 14,865 86,865 13 9.4
aska
Neva 186,000 81,000 18,533 99,533 14 11.2
da
New 135,000 65,000 13,589 78,589 11 12.1
Ham
psh
ire
New 741,000 277,000 59,329 336,329 49 8.1
Jer
sey
New 172,000 81,000 21,058 102,058 15 12.4
Mex
ico
New 1,538,00 620,000 123,675 743,675 108 8.5
York 0
Nort 711,000 332,000 72,121 404,121 59 10.6
h
Car
oli
na
Nort 59,000 26,000 5,826 31,826 5 9.1
h
Dak
ota
Ohio 1,188,00 520,000 89,958 609,958 88 10.6
0
Okla 350,000 147,000 42,772 189,772 28 11.9
homa
Oreg 371,000 165,000 31,292 196,292 28 11.5
on
Penn 1,363,00 528,000 101,778 629,778 91 10.5
syl 0
van
ia
Puer 130,874 \a 19,159 150,033 10 11.5
to
Ric
o
Rhod 109,000 42,000 11,410 53,410 8 10.7
e
Isl
and
Sout 380,000 182,000 37,656 219,656 32 11.6
h
Car
oli
na
Sout 74,000 32,000 7,816 39,816 6 10.2
h
Dak
ota
Tenn 516,000 235,000 48,154 283,154 41 10.3
ess
ee
Texa 1,647,00 774,000 175,332 949,332 138 9.6
s 0
Utah 138,000 58,000 12,935 70,935 10 6.8
Verm 62,000 29,000 5,139 34,139 5 10.4
ont
Virg 705,000 349,000 76,457 425,457 62 12.1
inia
Virg 4,822 \a 367 5,189 0 N/A
in
Isl
and
s
Wash 631,000 305,000 67,492 372,492 54 12.7
ing
ton
West 199,000 78,000 19,281 97,281 14 12.2
Vir
gin
ia
Wisc 507,000 219,000 40,176 259,176 38 8.9
ons
in
Wyom 48,000 22,000 4,906 26,906 4 10.5
ing
================================================================================
Nati 26,202,6 11,719,000 2,330,941 14,185,637 2,044 10.3
onal 96
tot
al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The veteran population numbers were the most recently
available data at the time VETS calculated the number of statutory
positions.
N/A = not applicable.
\a Data by war period are not available.
Sources: VETS and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (labor force data for May 1977).
FISCAL YEAR 1997 DVOP POSITIONS,
COST PER POSITION, ADMINISTRATION
AND SUPPORT PERCENTAGE, AND
INITIAL GRANT AWARD
========================================================== Appendix IV
DVOP
administrati DVOP
DVOP Cost per on and initial
position DVOP support grant
State s position (percent) award
-------------------------- -------- -------- ------------ --------
Alabama 27 $45,481 23.0 $1,228,0
00
Alaska 6 67,333 17.8 404,000
Arizona 29 39,793 31.3 1,154,00
0
Arkansas 13 43,923 25.4 571,000
California 180 64,894 23.5 11,681,0
00
Colorado 24 66,333 27.9 1,592,00
0
Connecticut 18 66,111 25.3 1,190,00
0
Delaware 5 43,400 18.0 217,000
District of Columbia 3 66,667 29.5 200,000
Florida 94 39,989 28.4 3,759,00
0
Georgia 50 42,280 26.2 2,114,00
0
Hawaii 9 60,889 27.7 548,000
Idaho 8 48,625 21.3 389,000
Illinois 59 64,627 31.4 3,813,00
0
Indiana 33 40,727 33.9 1,344,00
0
Iowa 11 58,182 33.9 640,000
Kansas 14 47,143 26.2 660,000
Kentucky 24 35,500 20.8 852,000
Louisiana 27 35,000 20.1 945,000
Maine 9 52,111 34.8 469,000
Maryland 32 51,500 34.4 1,648,00
0
Massachusetts 33 60,030 29.5 1,981,00
0
Michigan 54 63,667 24.1 3,438,00
0
Minnesota 24 57,875 25.0 1,389,00
0
Mississippi 15 38,800 23.0 582,000
Missouri 32 43,406 22.0 1,389,00
0
Montana 6 42,167 23.3 253,000
Nebraska 10 41,000 26.3 410,000
Nevada 8 61,125 23.1 489,000
New Hampshire 8 54,625 34.1 437,000
New Jersey 40 51,825 18.6 2,073,00
0
New Mexico 12 39,833 26.2 478,000
New York 89 66,899 26.4 5,954,00
0
North Carolina 46 38,565 21.4 1,774,00
0
North Dakota 3 44,667 24.6 134,000
Ohio 70 53,200 23.4 3,724,00
0
Oklahoma 22 46,182 24.8 1,016,00
0
Oregon 22 50,273 24.9 1,106,00
0
Pennsylvania 66 50,803 21.7 3,353,00
0
Puerto Rico 9 24,222 23.4 218,000
Rhode Island 6 55,500 23.7 333,000
South Carolina 27 35,926 21.0 970,000
South Dakota 4 41,500 27.7 166,000
Tennessee 32 37,000 22.5 1,184,00
0
Texas 103 43,883 18.6 4,520,00
0
Utah 8 48,625 27.8 389,000
Vermont 4 45,000 20.6 180,000
Virginia 52 43,231 26.2 2,248,00
0
Virgin Islands N/A N/A N/A N/A
Washington 44 60,500 26.4 2,662,00
0
West Virginia 12 31,000 21.5 372,000
Wisconsin 27 65,667 35.1 1,773,00
0
Wyoming 3 42,667 21.9 128,000
======================================================================
National total 1,566 $80,541,
000
National average $51,431 25.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Fiscal year 1997 DVOP positions, cost per position, and
administration and support percentages are projected numbers.
N/A = not applicable.
Source: VETS.
STATUTORY FORMULA FOR LVER STAFF POSITIONS AND STATUTORY POSITIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The following is an example of the LVER formula calculation for the
state of Minnesota for fiscal year 1997. Minnesota had 31 LVER
positions as of January 1, 1987. In addition, VETS data showed that
Minnesota had
-- a total of 462,000 veterans residing in the state compared with
26,202,696 veterans residing in the United States
(462,000/26,202,696 = 1.76 percent),
-- a total of 35,357 veterans who registered for assistance
compared with 2,299,303 veterans who registered in the United
States (35,357/2,299,303 = 1.54 percent), and
-- 21 full-service local employment services offices compared with
1,920 full-service employment services offices in the United
States (21/1,920 = 1.10 percent).
To continue the calculation, VETS adds the three percentages (1.76 +
1.54 + 1.10 = 4.40), then divides by 3 (4.40/3 = 1.47). VETS then
applies 1.47 to the 161 positions, which would give Minnesota an
additional 2 positions (161 x .0147 = 2). To complete the
calculation, VETS takes the number of positions Minnesota had on
board as of January 1, 1987, plus 1, then adds in the 2 additional
positions resulting from the percentage calculations (31 + 1 = 32 + 2
= 34), giving Minnesota 34 formula-level LVER positions for fiscal
year 1997.
Table V.1
Statutory LVER Positions for Fiscal Year
1997
LVER Total full-
staffing Total service job Total 1997 LVER
as of Jan. Plus veteran service veterans staff
State 1, 1987 one population offices registered authorized
-------- ---------- ------ ---------- -------------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 22.7 23.7 427,000 39 49,322 27
Alaska 9.1 10.1 65,000 19 14,182 11
Arizona 19.0 20.0 459,000 31 37,737 23
Arkansas 25.0 26.0 258,000 26 31,362 28
Californ 108.7 109.7 2,818,000 85 137,842 121
ia
Colorado 17.4 18.4 385,000 20 40,108 21
Connecti 18.5 19.5 339,000 18 23,754 21
cut
Delaware 2.5 3.5 78,000 4 6,589 4
District 6.0 7.0 50,000 4 6,014 7
of
Columbi
a
Florida 60.5 61.5 1,709,000 66 155,055 70
Georgia 27.9 28.9 685,000 45 86,317 34
Hawaii 5.7 6.7 116,000 8 11,295 7
Idaho 13.7 14.7 112,000 24 15,799 16
Illinois 51.0 52.0 1,074,000 55 87,997 58
Indiana 41.7 42.7 593,000 35 52,428 46
Iowa 24.0 25.0 291,000 57 25,251 28
Kansas 23.0 24.0 263,000 24 23,059 26
Kentucky 22.3 23.3 367,000 27 50,387 26
Louisian 20.1 21.1 378,000 31 40,606 24
a
Maine 8.4 9.4 153,000 12 18,794 11
Maryland 16.3 17.3 530,000 28 31,524 20
Massachu 24.2 25.2 594,000 37 22,148 28
setts
Michigan 47.1 48.1 949,000 53 95,044 54
Minnesot 31.0 32.0 462,000 21 35,357 34
a
Mississi 23.1 24.1 233,000 38 26,739 26
ppi
Missouri 39.5 40.5 586,000 40 71,493 45
Montana 11.5 12.5 95,000 23 13,375 14
Nebraska 12.3 13.3 168,000 20 15,393 14
Nevada 8.8 9.8 186,000 10 20,508 11
New 8.1 9.1 135,000 13 8,535 10
Hampshi
re
New 21.5 22.5 741,000 24 29,951 25
Jersey
New 13.9 14.9 172,000 20 20,420 16
Mexico
New York 68.8 69.8 1,538,000 82 95,848 77
North 48.8 49.8 711,000 60 83,063 55
Carolina
North 9.0 10.0 59,000 18 7,303 11
Dakota
Ohio 65.7 66.7 1,188,000 65 88,963 73
Oklahoma 33.6 34.6 350,000 39 39,226 37
Oregon 23.5 24.5 371,000 28 48,656 27
Pennsylv 68.4 69.4 1,363,000 78 88,475 76
ania
Puerto 7.0 8.0 130,874 16 8,281 9
Rico
Rhode 5.1 6.1 109,000 9 8,188 7
Island
South 23.4 24.4 380,000 37 49,702 27
Carolina
South 7.8 8.8 74,000 16 8,451 10
Dakota
Tennesse 27.5 28.5 516,000 73 46,588 33
e
Texas 87.3 88.3 1,647,000 281 172,060 103
Utah 9.1 10.1 138,000 24 16,771 11
Vermont 6.9 7.9 62,000 12 7,491 9
Virginia 26.4 27.4 705,000 40 74,698 32
Virgin 1.0 2.0 4.822 2 714 2
Islands
Washingt 27.2 28.2 631,000 28 66,463 32
on
West 15.3 16.3 199,000 17 26,463 18
Virginia
Wisconsi 29.9 30.9 507,000 26 46,992 34
n
Wyoming 9.4 10.4 48,000 12 10,522 11
================================================================================
National 1,385.6 1,438. 26,202,696 1,920 2,299,303 1,600
total 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The numbers used for total veteran population, total
full-service job service offices, and total veterans registered are
the most recent data available at the time VETS calculated the number
of statutory positions.
Source: VETS.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 LVER POSITIONS, COST per POSITION, ADMINISTRATION
AND SUPPORT PERCENTAGE, AND INITIAL GRANT AWARD
LVER
administra LVER
LVER Cost per tion and initial
positi LVER support grant
State ons position (percent) award
------------------------------ ------ -------- ---------- --------
Alabama 23.0 $51,609 22.0 $1,187,0
00
Alaska 10.5 69,619 24.2 731,000
Arizona 19.0 44,789 33.3 851,000
Arkansas 21.5 48,977 25.5 1,053,00
0
California 100.5 67,184 23.7 6,752,00
0
Colorado 17.0 77,235 22.2 1,313,00
0
Connecticut 16.0 75,813 24.8 1,213,00
0
Delaware 4.0 48,000 24.5 192,000
District of Columbia 6.5 65,385 30.1 425,000
Florida 57.0 46,439 24.8 2,647,00
0
Georgia 28.0 49,250 26.4 1,379,00
0
Hawaii 8.0 66,500 25.0 532,000
Idaho 14.5 47,862 23.9 694,000
Illinois 49.0 70,204 28.5 3,440,00
0
Indiana 41.0 46,366 27.9 1,901,00
0
Iowa 21.0 56,190 30.3 1,180,00
0
Kansas 22.0 42,136 27.9 927,000
Kentucky 25.5 34,941 21.1 891,000
Louisiana 23.0 29,174 13.4 671,000
Maine 9.0 54,444 28.0 490,000
Maryland 17.0 59,588 31.2 1,013,00
0
Massachusetts 23.5 60,468 28.0 1,421,00
0
Michigan 45.0 71,756 26.4 3,229,00
0
Minnesota 27.0 61,259 25.0 1,654,00
0
Mississippi 24.0 43,292 21.2 1,039,00
0
Missouri 36.0 44,306 22.1 1,595,00
0
Montana 11.5 46,435 29.4 534,000
Nebraska 13.5 42,444 25.3 573,000
Nevada 8.0 60,875 18.7 487,000
New Hampshire 8.0 58,875 31.2 471,000
New Jersey 22.0 58,636 18.0 1,290,00
0
New Mexico 14.5 45,172 23.8 655,000
New York 71.0 67,211 27.0 4,772,00
0
North Carolina 46.0 48,870 22.2 2,248,00
0
North Dakota 9.0 52,778 26.5 475,000
Ohio 63.0 53,190 22.1 3,351,00
0
Oklahoma 31.5 47,619 25.6 1,500,00
0
Oregon 23.0 53,174 25.3 1,223,00
0
Pennsylvania 55.0 61,491 19.6 3,382,00
0
Puerto Rico 8.0 26,625 15.6 205,000
Rhode Island 6.0 51,667 24.2 310,000
South Carolina 25.0 42,800 21.8 1,070,00
0
South Dakota 9.0 33,889 23.0 305,000
Tennessee 29.5 42,034 20.0 1,240,00
0
Texas 77.0 51,351 18.9 3,954,00
0
Utah 11.0 58,091 19.9 639,000
Vermont 7.5 50,667 20.8 380,000
Virginia 28.0 48,393 24.2 1,355,00
0
Virgin Islands 2.0 48,000 17.7 96,000
Washington 28.0 68,964 24.3 1,931,00
0
West Virginia 15.0 34,733 20.7 521,000
Wisconsin 27.0 71,148 33.5 1,921,00
0
Wyoming 10.0 43,900 23.9 439,000
======================================================================
National total 1,347. $73,747,
5 000
National average $54,729 24.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fiscal year 1997 LVER positions, cost per position, and
administration and support percentages are projected numbers.
Source: VETS.
PROGRAM YEAR 1995 APPLICANTS AND
VETERANS' PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
========================================================= Appendix VII
Table VII.1
Number of Applicants for Program Year
1995
Vietnam- Special
Nonveteran era Disabled disabled
State s Veterans veterans veterans veterans
-------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 319,026 45,540 15,330 3,700 1,438
Alaska 66,679 13,105 5,881 1,318 644
Arizona 248,732 36,434 15,398 2,232 817
Arkansas 193,478 28,788 10,228 2,350 1,242
California 748,043 127,425 52,404 11,032 4,772
Colorado 175,729 37,404 14,474 3,020 1,068
Connecticut 158,854 21,677 9,345 968 367
Delaware 37,026 6,372 2,201 360 112
District of Columbia 45,962 5,617 2,089 282 125
Florida 864,942 127,167 49,393 9,036 4,110
Georgia 511,678 80,967 24,218 3,015 1,445
Hawaii 54,194 10,932 4,006 1,020 463
Idaho 93,486 14,709 5,806 1,293 416
Illinois 490,582 87,896 29,171 3,694 1,345
Indiana 230,638 48,003 16,821 2,726 978
Iowa 181,074 23,295 8,145 1,266 524
Kansas 126,252 21,978 7,445 1,370 403
Kentucky 274,558 47,499 16,161 3,135 937
Louisiana 232,537 38,000 13,466 2,378 826
Maine 104,208 17,638 8,749 1,665 467
Maryland 209,158 31,821 9,409 2,151 806
Massachusetts 137,055 17,649 7,120 1,458 519
Michigan 482,927 80,497 28,277 4,494 1,251
Minnesota 160,837 32,819 13,452 1,690 524
Mississippi 219,631 26,662 8,383 1,524 615
Missouri 472,086 65,228 24,890 5,327 1,843
Montana 67,446 12,988 5,226 918 355
Nebraska 73,411 14,233 5,127 947 387
Nevada 71,239 18,181 8,105 1,003 386
New Hampshire 35,512 7,661 3,156 866 343
New Jersey 279,978 27,914 10,452 1,949 574
New Mexico 102,006 17,733 6,517 1,192 438
New York 812,271 96,793 32,418 5,547 2,065
North Carolina 570,769 81,796 27,846 6,141 2,702
North Dakota 57,240 7,148 2,650 634 232
Ohio 491,632 126,816 48,320 12,450 6,808
Oklahoma 180,882 35,684 14,498 2,782 1,292
Oregon 286,325 47,630 20,495 2,934 1,318
Pennsylvania 440,407 86,265 32,054 5,098 1,728
Puerto Rico 184,682 7,170 2,294 652 208
Rhode Island 43,588 6,876 2,625 488 181
South Carolina 307,404 48,785 18,253 3,292 1,301
South Dakota 61,963 8,078 2,873 670 217
Tennessee 296,265 41,696 15,004 3,442 1,956
Texas 1,403,723 157,590 69,764 8,837 2,828
Utah 160,212 17,039 6,807 1,145 390
Vermont 52,544 6,850 2,773 269 106
Virginia 314,079 67,223 22,970 6,103 2,020
Virgin Islands 17,706 504 194 20 13
Washington 357,782 62,544 25,147 4,332 1,558
West Virginia 130,284 25,428 10,168 1,547 474
Wisconsin 270,049 43,358 15,102 4,105 1,365
Wyoming 63,839 9,917 4,129 578 179
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: VETS.
Table VII.2
Percentage Placed/Obtaining Employment
for Program Year 1995
Vietnam-
Nonveteran era Disabled
State s Veterans veterans veterans
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 20.49 35.70 34.30 38.32
Alaska 17.61 23.01 22.83 29.96
Arizona 12.96 19.05 18.59 21.50
Arkansas 16.87 33.08 31.99 36.89
California 13.16 19.20 18.99 21.40
Colorado 14.65 22.87 22.99 21.99
Connecticut 7.69 19.72 20.56 23.04
Delaware 6.51 11.72 12.31 15.83
District of Columbia 5.62 7.41 8.38 9.57
Florida 13.81 22.28 21.60 30.73
Georgia 14.34 25.86 25.63 33.10
Hawaii 5.93 14.40 15.25 15.59
Idaho 19.13 35.59 35.10 37.05
Illinois 10.52 26.24 24.47 32.30
Indiana 8.55 16.19 14.95 17.98
Iowa 29.58 46.44 44.86 48.34
Kansas 24.84 32.05 31.65 38.32
Kentucky 17.39 28.12 26.55 31.74
Louisiana 9.15 17.14 16.29 20.69
Maine 9.69 15.29 14.62 21.62
Maryland 12.00 23.88 24.57 27.34
Massachusetts 10.71 25.50 25.59 30.11
Michigan 8.37 11.34 11.14 13.57
Minnesota 12.53 23.18 22.88 23.25
Mississippi 39.30 30.99 30.90 34.45
Missouri 14.68 26.14 23.21 27.31
Montana 20.01 32.92 31.73 41.61
Nebraska 18.44 26.23 24.48 25.87
Nevada 18.93 21.45 22.63 23.33
New Hampshire 12.15 30.90 32.03 33.49
New Jersey 19.41 33.71 33.60 35.66
New Mexico 13.24 20.69 20.99 22.65
New York 7.33 17.66 18.77 23.40
North Carolina 23.51 37.11 37.09 41.62
North Dakota 26.21 37.69 36.15 45.11
Ohio 9.46 16.34 15.50 19.30
Oklahoma 25.38 40.57 39.94 45.25
Oregon 17.1 29.5 27.9 36.5
Pennsylvania 12.90 20.41 18.88 26.28
Puerto Rico 9.55 18.35 19.62 20.25
Rhode Island 3.38 7.68 8.65 11.68
South Carolina 15.77 27.96 26.36 30.83
South Dakota 27.05 40.22 39.44 44.03
Tennessee 10.55 19.46 17.68 24.11
Texas 17.28 32.68 31.70 40.15
Utah 36.63 47.93 47.48 53.45
Vermont 12.95 19.42 18.90 27.88
Virginia 7.66 13.71 13.02 13.70
Virgin Islands 10.87 21.83 23.71 45.00
Washington 16.57 23.62 23.17 29.34
West Virginia 9.17 14.54 12.80 17.71
Wisconsin 28.91 37.71 35.63 39.42
Wyoming 18.51 25.40 24.32 28.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in bold indicate areas where states failed to meet
their performance standards.
Source: VETS.
Table VII.3
Percentage of Federal Contractor Job
Listing Placements
Vietnam- Special
Nonveteran era disabled
State s veterans veterans
---------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 4.01 6.74 8.07
Alaska 0.70 1.17 1.86
Arizona 1.48 1.78 2.81
Arkansas 3.50 6.41 12.30
California 2.94 3.65 4.38
Colorado 0.82 1.08 1.87
Connecticut 0.05 0.35 1.09
Delaware 1.18 2.00 3.57
District of Columbia 0.04 0.10 1.60
Florida 1.83 2.86 5.11
Georgia 1.76 3.54 6.50
Hawaii 0.35 0.77 1.51
Idaho 2.96 4.94 6.97
Illinois 0.49 1.43 4.39
Indiana 2.39 3.61 4.19
Iowa 3.93 5.37 6.49
Kansas 2.38 3.05 4.22
Kentucky 0.79 1.95 3.42
Louisiana 0.27 0.53 1.09
Maine 0.89 1.96 2.41
Maryland 0.62 1.68 3.23
Massachusetts 0.41 0.77 1.35
Michigan 0.24 0.30 0.64
Minnesota 0.02 0.06 0.38
Mississippi 0.70 1.50 2.28
Missouri 0.52 0.82 0.65
Montana 1.29 3.33 8.45
Nebraska 4.00 4.37 3.36
Nevada 0.15 0.33 0.26
New Hampshire 0.42 2.03 4.66
New Jersey 0.06 0.33 0.70
New Mexico 0.27 0.90 2.51
New York 0.20 0.59 1.21
North Carolina 3.40 7.61 12.29
North Dakota 2.51 5.17 5.60
Ohio 1.40 1.91 2.70
Oklahoma 2.66 5.71 11.08
Oregon 1.3 2.0 3.4
Pennsylvania 2.55 3.62 5.96
Puerto Rico 0.53 1.79 2.40
Rhode Island 0 Not tested Not tested
South Carolina 2.88 4.36 6.69
South Dakota 0.20 2.30 9.22
Tennessee 1.62 4.49 9.48
Texas 1.17 3.25 5.87
Utah 0.78 1.76 6.15
Vermont 0 Not tested Not tested
Virginia 1.06 1.89 2.33
Virgin Islands 0 Not tested Not tested
Washington 0.44 1.17 3.34
West Virginia 1.56 1.82 2.32
Wisconsin 1.49 2.57 3.81
Wyoming 0.72 0.94 0.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in bold indicate areas where states failed to meet
their performance standards.
Source: VETS.
Table VII.4
Percentage Counseled in Program Year
1995
Vietnam-
Nonveteran era Disabled
State s Veterans veterans veterans
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 0.15 0.73 0.89 2.57
Alaska 2.97 3.58 3.75 4.70
Arizona 1.28 2.40 2.76 5.10
Arkansas 0.09 0.88 0.99 1.74
California 0.26 2.11 2.25 4.50
Colorado 4.19 13.50 14.05 19.14
Connecticut 2.07 5.25 6.60 11.05
Delaware 2.29 12.46 11.09 17.78
District of Columbia 31.21 54.58 54.76 67.73
Florida 1.80 3.09 3.63 5.29
Georgia 8.39 15.82 20.39 31.14
Hawaii 1.04 4.32 5.54 18.33
Idaho 0.57 3.32 3.36 11.52
Illinois 0.10 1.93 2.49 7.42
Indiana 0.96 1.81 1.94 4.59
Iowa 1.21 10.98 12.69 35.07
Kansas 3.81 16.74 20.93 37.45
Kentucky 5.10 10.54 13.04 15.37
Louisiana 0.39 2.95 3.48 6.56
Maine 0.60 2.62 3.62 3.96
Maryland 51.61 81.40 85.73 87.26
Massachusetts 4.60 15.20 17.87 16.12
Michigan 3.26 4.54 5.02 7.21
Minnesota 0.64 0.90 1.05 1.72
Mississippi 2.16 3.79 4.35 7.48
Missouri 1.43 2.60 3.06 4.45
Montana 2.80 15.83 17.49 40.09
Nebraska 5.02 8.67 8.80 11.93
Nevada 2.87 4.09 4.33 5.88
New Hampshire 5.32 7.40 8.62 9.12
New Jersey 11.43 18.78 20.11 24.63
New Mexico 1.83 3.47 3.80 3.52
New York 6.65 11.34 12.79 14.15
North Carolina 1.59 4.35 5.58 8.53
North Dakota 1.79 6.46 8.19 17.82
Ohio 0.34 0.70 0.76 1.04
Oklahoma 0.20 2.09 2.44 8.95
Oregon 8.3 22.0 22.6 42.3
Pennsylvania 0.43 1.07 1.28 2.94
Puerto Rico 4.86 11.30 11.64 17.33
Rhode Island 4.72 31.30 32.66 42.01
South Carolina 0.20 1.16 1.05 2.22
South Dakota 3.32 7.13 8.70 15.52
Tennessee 0.04 0.66 0.65 3.98
Texas 2.12 10.37 10.76 25.10
Utah 6.09 12.62 14.16 36.59
Vermont 2.50 3.64 4.83 6.69
Virginia 0.07 1.95 2.32 3.88
Virgin Islands 0 Not tested Not tested Not tested
Washington 3.50 9.09 9.63 19.02
West Virginia 5.62 7.76 9.02 10.54
Wisconsin 0.96 1.98 2.33 3.07
Wyoming 2.33 4.79 4.87 14.53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: VETS.
Table VII.5
Percentage Placed in Training in Program
Year 1995
Vietnam-
Nonveteran era Disabled
State s Veterans veterans veterans
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.08
Alaska 0.15 1.57 0.98 0.98
Arizona 0.10 0.23 0.22 0.80
Arkansas 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.09
California 0.26 0.61 0.78 0.76
Colorado 0.32 1.18 1.39 2.35
Connecticut 0.33 0.92 1.21 1.34
Delaware 0.77 1.55 2.00 5.83
District of Columbia 2.17 Not tested Not tested Not tested
Florida 0.12 0.88 0.83 2.29
Georgia 0.01 0.41 0.40 0.96
Hawaii 1.03 1.64 2.45 0.98
Idaho 0.23 1.56 1.19 4.87
Illinois 0.08 1.35 1.33 3.90
Indiana 0.60 0.77 0.95 1.83
Iowa 0.66 2.84 3.39 10.11
Kansas 0.30 0.75 0.70 2.55
Kentucky 0.75 2.18 2.18 3.99
Louisiana 0.07 0.38 0.36 0.76
Maine 0.72 2.05 2.76 7.57
Maryland 0.90 1.66 1.90 3.02
Massachusetts 1.84 4.03 4.51 7.54
Michigan 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.36
Minnesota 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.95
Mississippi 1.66 3.43 4.64 5.32
Missouri 0.37 1.77 1.13 2.53
Montana 0.07 0.73 0.61 2.07
Nebraska 0.04 0.27 0.31 0.95
Nevada 2.73 3.25 2.50 0.70
New Hampshire 0.51 1.02 0.82 2.31
New Jersey 2.52 4.11 4.27 5.64
New Mexico 0.97 1.11 1.25 1.01
New York 0.52 1.37 1.67 3.49
North Carolina 0.35 1.42 1.35 3.34
North Dakota 0.30 1.39 1.28 3.79
Ohio 0.07 0.33 0.27 0.58
Oklahoma 0.87 3.74 3.65 7.62
Oregon 0.4 0.8 0.9 2.4
Pennsylvania 0.51 1.42 1.49 5.88
Puerto Rico 0.35 2.55 2.79 1.99
Rhode Island 0.35 1.09 1.11 1.23
South Carolina 0.61 Not tested Not tested Not tested
South Dakota 0.37 0.88 1.32 3.58
Tennessee 0.16 1.29 1.07 3.28
Texas 0.30 0.51 0.65 0.92
Utah 0.15 0.33 0.22 0.61
Vermont 1.97 2.61 2.85 5.95
Virginia 0.03 0.15 0.23 0.23
Virgin Islands 1.04 0.20 0 Not tested
Washington 6.93 2.19 1.90 3.99
West Virginia 2.22 2.15 2.66 2.46
Wisconsin 0.31 0.32 < b>0.35 < b>0.42
Wyoming 1.21 1.78 2.45 3.11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in bold indicate areas where states failed to meet
their performance standards.
Source: VETS.
Table VII.6
Percentage Receiving Reportable Services
in Program Year 1995
Vietnam-
Nonveteran era Disabled
State s Veterans veterans veterans
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Alabama 76.08 94.86 94.60 96.21
Alaska 46.47 68.40 65.89 78.90
Arizona 60.00 86.78 87.16 92.47
Arkansas 88.06 98.04 98.03 99.49
California 45.47 71.35 72.11 77.24
Colorado 73.83 86.75 87.44 85.50
Connecticut 61.89 88.55 89.57 90.50
Delaware 33.44 58.73 58.16 71.94
District of Columbia 42.94 67.67 69.32 77.31
Florida 56.54 74.35 73.90 81.91
Georgia 56.16 91.22 91.39 95.85
Hawaii 65.74 86.73 94.01 89.41
Idaho 73.51 94.08 94.44 97.60
Illinois 33.16 83.94 83.98 91.26
Indiana 67.74 77.95 77.95 81.69
Iowa 89.39 97.67 97.39 98.89
Kansas 75.24 92.05 91.20 92.48
Kentucky 72.47 90.83 91.73 96.14
Louisiana 52.20 76.21 75.46 82.72
Maine 54.25 79.83 78.98 91.29
Maryland 67.76 91.93 93.88 95.49
Massachusetts 62.97 91.27 91.80 95.82
Michigan 58.03 73.97 74.40 78.59
Minnesota 53.70 83.53 83.65 86.21
Mississippi 61.89 79.96 80.26 84.84
Missouri 56.63 81.19 79.44 81.72
Montana 68.83 92.68 92.92 94.66
Nebraska Not tested Not tested Not tested Not tested
Nevada 73.30 88.34 88.40 92.32
New Hampshire 69.93 95.52 95.63 96.88
New Jersey 80.03 97.40 97.50 98.26
New Mexico 74.44 77.65 77.89 81.12
New York 45.29 76.23 79.16 86.20
North Carolina 78.19 96.26 95.99 97.77
North Dakota 88.85 99.89 100.38 100.47
Ohio 72.40 98.77\a 101.65 107.05\a
Oklahoma 75.43 96.70 96.97 98.41
Oregon 52.3 68.7 67.8 85.1
Pennsylvania 65.16 80.41 80.29 85.46
Puerto Rico 41.87 69.34 71.58 75.46
Rhode Island 20.71 52.41 53.89 61.48
South Carolina 67.11 86.80 85.51 91.10
South Dakota 75.91 98.51 98.43 99.55
Tennessee 50.35 89.88 85.83 94.16
Texas 64.05 94.91 96.25 97.29
Utah 88.62 96.23 95.95 97.21
Vermont 51.53 63.31 63.04 78.81
Virginia 48.13 74.54 74.48 77.29
Virgin Islands 61.21 100.00 100.00 100.00
Washington 54.72 72.54 73.14 81.72
West Virginia 56.62 75.16 73.92 82.22
Wisconsin 67.64 77.87 77.47 80.71
Wyoming 71.92 97.93 97.89 99.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers in bold indicate areas where states failed to meet
their performance standards.
\a Standard exceeded 100 percent.
Source: VETS.
DVOP AND LVER STARTING AND
FULL-PERFORMANCE SALARIES
======================================================== Appendix VIII
DVOP full- LVER full-
DVOP starting performance LVER starting performance
State salary salary salary salary
---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Alabama $21,177 $32,188 $21,707 $32,969
Alaska 30,156 32,184 30,156 32,184
Arizona 19,464 29,830 22,568 35,199
Arkansas 16,678 34,346 16,678 34,346
California 26,364 37,920 26,364 37,920
Colorado 30,438 46,128 30,438 56,061
Connecticut 27,560 43,873 27,560 43,873
Delaware 21,030 30,098 21,030 30,098
District of 21,128 42,406 25,104 48,089
Columbia
Florida 19,635 32,142 20,812 34,194
Georgia 18,972 36,618 18,972 36,618
Hawaii 30,084 39,624 32,544 46,356
Idaho 22,360 36,982 22,360 36,982
Illinois 23,604 33,216 27,144 38,784
Indiana 18,148 27,274 20,332 30,368
Iowa 22,464 31,740 22,464 31,740
Kansas 22,776 32,040 22,776 32,040
Kentucky 16,262 32,940 16,262 32,940
Louisiana 15,768 28,164 15,768 28,164
Maine 20,654 27,456 21,320 28,554
Maryland 22,004 28,642 23,624 33,229
Massachusetts 24,550 31,833 24,550 31,833
Michigan 24,502 31,824 27,019 35,422
Minnesota 25,996 37,415 25,996 41,635
Mississippi 20,746 31,057 20,746 31,057
Missouri 19,596 27,612 19,596 27,612
Montana 21,058 32,523 21,058 32,523
Nebraska 22,257 31,158 22,257 31,158
Nevada 23,157 31,016 25,133 33,794
New Hampshire 21,762 25,662 23,653 27,924
New Jersey 25,940 36,328 31,531 44,154
New Mexico 17,089 25,284 21,166 29,836
New York 26,827 41,764 26,827 41,764
North Carolina 20,967 33,687 20,967 40,304
North Dakota 20,856 33,144 22,920 36,312
Ohio 25,875 32,656 25,875 32,656
Oklahoma 20,776 29,888 22,718 32,025
Oregon 22,428 29,832 22,428 29,832
Pennsylvania 23,981 36,127 27,130 41,252
Puerto Rico 13,008 14,928 13,780 17,244
Rhode Island 24,277 27,156 24,277 27,156
South Carolina 20,831 35,629 20,831 43,352
South Dakota 18,928 23,650 18,928 23,650
Tennessee 16,752 28,656 16,752 29,952
Texas 19,344 29,628 23,532 31,656
Utah 20,462 34,268 20,462 44,954
Vermont 22,530 35,600 22,530 35,600
Virginia 20,976 32,027 20,976 32,027
Virgin Islands N/A N/A 28,000 35,428
Washington 27,384 34,860 31,608 40,440
West Virginia 16,116 26,256 17,256 28,104
Wisconsin 22,258 33,888 22,258 36,905
Wyoming 18,060 28,872 20,292 32,880
================================================================================
National average $21,846 $32,308 $23,001 $34,739
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: N/A = not applicable.
Source: Salary data were obtained from December 1996 and January
1997 telephone interviews with state VETS directors.
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DVOP AND LVER
SURVEY COMMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IX
In responding to our mail survey, 58.5 percent of DVOP specialists
and 52.6 percent of LVER staff added comments on the final page of
the survey. To accurately represent those veterans who made
comments, a 25-percent random sample of the 1,513 surveys with
comments was analyzed. Comments on each of the 378 surveys were
coded, and the resulting 670 comments were categorized according to
their content. Over 51 percent of the 378 sampled surveys were
completed by DVOP specialists, while the remaining sample surveys
represented LVER staff responses.
Analysis of the comments indicated an interest in maintaining
veterans' employment services delivered by DVOP and LVER staff. In
general, the response rate illustrated that many DVOP and LVER staff
have concerns about and frustrations with the current quality of the
employment programs. Although some DVOP and LVER staff used the
comments section to praise the current programs, the majority
suggested that the programs lacked resources or should be revised to
enhance services to veterans.
The comments were placed in initial categories on the basis of their
content. These categories, ordered according to relative frequency,
are listed in table IX.1. The comment categories are discussed in
detail in the text following the table.
Table IX.1
Major Categories of Comments Analyzed
Category No. %
---------------------------------------------------------- ---- ----
1. Not enough resources (including staff, funding, 106 28.0
privacy, time)
2. Description of responsibilities (generally or 98 25.9
specifically whether nonveterans should be served by DVOP
and LVER staff)
3. Performance standards (difficult to meet, revision 70 18.5
needed, or need better monitoring by state managers)
4. Protect veterans' services 65 17.2
5. Up-to-date computer technology and training needed 61 16.1
6. Management interference within the local office 47 12.4
7. Comments regarding the National Veterans' Training 31 8.2
Institute
8. Comments about the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), 31 8.2
VR&C duties, or that VR&C coordination with DVOP program
is lacking
9. Change in employment services and changes to one-stop 28 7.4
career centers
10. Promote federalizing of DVOP and LVER programs 23 6.1
11. Lack of veteran-friendly environment in local office 23 6.1
12. Concern about low or unequal DVOP/LVER pay between 19 5.0
states
13. Changes needed in title 38 hiring preference or 5 1.3
requirements for DVOP/LVER staff
14. Other comments 63 16.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES
Among the 378 total respondents, the most frequently cited comment
was "not enough resources." About 28 percent of DVOP and LVER staff
believed that they lacked the resources necessary to properly assist
veterans in finding employment. The following quotation illustrates
the tenor of many of the comments in this category:
"The Law states that the DVOP staff is supposed to be in
addition to the regular staff and not to supplant it. However,
the state has reduced regular interviewer staff. As a result,
everything that can be legally pushed off on the LVER/DVOP is.
We have so many collateral functions, especially job order and
employer visits, not for specific veterans but general job
orders, many of which do not pay enough for most of our clients.
We spend so much time that we do not have adequate time to help
those veterans who need us."
Concerns about funding shortages indicated that respondents were
concerned about the future of their own positions if the LVER and
DVOP programs continue to experience staffing cuts. For example:
"[There is] too much job insecurity in the DVOP/LVER grant
program. [We are] losing some outstanding veteran
representatives due to civil service restrictions and
seniority."
In addition to concerns about funding and staff shortages,
respondents expressed concerns about the lack of privacy when meeting
with clients about personal issues relating to their disabilities, as
well as the limited time with each client also resulting from staff
shortages.
DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Nearly 26 percent (98) of DVOP and LVER staff commented in more
detail about their general job responsibilities. In describing their
responsibilities, however, 30 percent of these 98 respondents
described how they provide employment services to nonveterans,
despite the regulations outlined in title 38. As the following
respondent explained:
"Use of DVOP/LVER for nonveteran related functions (i.e.
providing services to nonveterans, use as receptionist, and
other administrative functions) detracts from [our] primary
role."
Others commented about their general duties:
"Vet staff duties include, but are not limited to: intake,
assessment, career counseling, outreach, radio show[s] . . .
, job fairs, [involvement in] 4-5 committee[s] . . . ,
resource center assignment of 8 hours per week each (16 of 37.5
hour work week is manned by veteran staff)."
"This position outreaches to the indigent veteran population in
this community through weekly visits to the Coalition for the
Homeless, Salvation Army Rehabilitation Center, etc."
MANAGEMENT INTERFERENCE WITHIN THE
LOCAL OFFICE
Many DVOP and LVER staff believed they had no recourse in handling
local office managers who failed to follow title 38 regulations, and
12.4 percent of the respondents discussed management interference
within the local office:
"I would like the [state to] follow the rules under Title 38
Chapter 41 as it relates to the DVOPs and LVER programs.
Emphasize that the DVOPs' work with the disabled veterans "ONLY"
and ensure the mainstream employment. We need a name of a
person(s) to call when management refuses to follow the law as
written Title 38 Chapter 41. This will stop the intimidation of
management thinking they can treat and use DVOPs and LVERs
anyway they choose."
LACK OF VETERAN-FRIENDLY
ENVIRONMENT IN LOCAL OFFICE
A small percentage, 6.1, of DVOP and LVER staff described the
antiveteran sentiment in their local offices by staff or managers.
Because DVOP and LVER staff fall under the jurisdiction of employment
service supervisors, many were told that the office as a whole comes
first:
"Recently, when incorrect procedures were identified in veteran
referral [by non-DVOP or LVER staff], the manager stated that
the[se] staff should take care of her nonvet staff. If any
questions arise, she immediately defends the nonvet staff and
implies that the [DVOP and LVER] staff has an attitude problem.
Also, she frequently states (relating to office procedures) that
if it is not in writing, she does not have to justify it. The
[DVOP and LVER] staff [are] caught in the middle."
PROMOTE FEDERALIZING OF DVOP AND
LVER PROGRAMS
Comments indicated that in many cases the DVOP and LVER staff are
caught between the federal regulations and the state management's
enforcement, or lack thereof. Six percent of DVOP and LVER
respondents believed that to solve many conflicts between state and
federal jurisdictions, it would be best to place the DVOP and LVER
staff entirely under federal control and supervision:
"I strongly feel that I should be able to perform as a DVOP
without fear of reprisal. Therefore, the duties of the DVOP
should be mandated by the Federal Government and not left up to
the local office managers to dictate policy."
Difficult state managers were not the only reason survey respondents
believed that the DVOP and LVER programs should be federalized:
". . . State control of a Federal [VETS] program, especially
the vets job program, results in 50+ ways of doing the same job.
Title 38 is meaningless when dumped into a state political
quagmire. It gets diluted and receives varied support and
enactment, depending on the political complexion of the state."
CONCERN ABOUT LOW OR UNEQUAL
DVOP/LVER PAY BETWEEN STATES
Nineteen of the veterans' comments (5 percent) concerned pay scales.
Many DVOP and LVER staff believed that as employees following federal
regulations, they deserved a federalized pay scale:
"If all LVERs/DVOPs were federalized, they would all be under
one set of rules, a single chain of command, and much better
relationship with the VA. Standardized pay scale would greatly
help in retaining quality veteran employment representatives,
instead of the "gap" of several thousands of dollars per year in
pay from state to state."
Other DVOP and LVER staff simply believed that low starting salaries
and little growth potential undermined the program:
"The LVER/DVOPs in our office are both motivated professionals
with college degrees (most nonvet staff have no college degree).
We start at an annual salary which is $6,000 a year lower than
the average state per capita income."
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Over 18 percent made comments pertaining to performance standards.
Nearly 70 percent of these comments addressed the current performance
standards and believed they needed revision or were too difficult to
meet. The remaining 30 percent of the comments stated that the
standards should be better monitored:
"I feel that close monitoring of activities performed by LVERs
and DVOPs should be kept and that managers and supervisors be
made aware of the duties of the representatives so that these
representatives are able to perform the job that they are being
paid to do."
In this case, the comment suggests that state-level involvement will
help enforce federal guidelines so that DVOP and LVER staff are able
to work under the federal regulations without local interference.
UP-TO-DATE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND
TRAINING
Others were concerned that their computer tracking systems were
outdated or cumbersome. Sixty-one respondents (16.1 percent) stated
that the current computer systems at their disposal made serving the
veteran population difficult. The vast majority of comments
concerned upgrading the current system or purchasing a system where
none existed:
"Better computer capability would help our clients and staff.
Laptops with reasonable applications software, remote access to
the state system for use during outreach assignments and
internet/PCs options might bring us into the 1990s in dealing
with/for our clients."
"I think that if we as DVOPs have computers so [we] could have
more information at our fingertips, we could do our jobs better
and be more useful to our vets that we serve. Such things:
Internet, LMI, America's Job Bank, [Microsoft] Word, and
Windows."
Other DVOP and LVER staff in less populous states often serve a large
geographic area through outreach. When they leave the office, they
do not currently have access to computers while they are
outstationed:
"As a DVOP staffer, I feel I could better serve my veterans if I
had access to a computer where I am outstationed at a veteran
center. A number of my clients have to be referred to the local
office because of nonaccess to a computer."
COMMENTS REGARDING THE NATIONAL
VETERANS' TRAINING INSTITUTE
Of the 8.2 percent who made comments concerning the National
Veterans' Training Institute, over 80 percent were positive and cited
the national training as essential to learning the duties of DVOP and
LVER staff. Many DVOP and LVER staff who had not received the
training asked to be sent to the National Veterans' Training
Institute because they had seen the benefits in their colleagues.
Others believed that even more detailed institute training would be
useful. The 20 percent in the minority who believed that the
National Veterans' Training Institute was not a good program often
believed that their own state could have provided more state-specific
training. Still others believed the training was not cost-efficient.
COMMENTS ABOUT TAP, VR&C DUTIES,
OR VR&C COORDINATION WITH DVOP
PROGRAM LACKING
About 8.2 percent of DVOP and LVER staff commented about TAP and
VR&C; 70 percent of the comments were specific remarks about duties,
while the other 30 percent cited a lack of coordination between the
DVOP and VR&C programs. Many DVOP staff believed that the overlap
between the two programs could be avoided:
"The coordination between VR&C and this office is almost nil.
Of the eight (8) years I've been working in the vets program,
about three times have I had a vet referred to me by VR&C, and
all had already received job employment services . . . .
I've visited VR&C on four occasions and asked to have disabled
and special disabled referred to me but, besides that, there's
no coordination between our offices. I've been to TAP training,
but I haven't given one TAP session."
In commenting on their TAP and VR&C duties, most respondents praised
the effectiveness of both programs:
"As I am deeply involved in both TAP and VR&C case management I
feel both programs are invaluable to those I serve. The
programs provide a quality product at a minimum cost, while at
the same time helping put informed, productive workers into the
labor pool, or directly into jobs with employers."
"Through the TAP program, which is the first line information
center for veterans, we tell our veterans to contact their local
LVER or DVOP for information and assistance in finding out about
veteran programs, employment, and financial assistance. We
become an information service, a tracking service, and, most
important, the first step back to the mainstream of life for the
disabled, or impaired, vet."
CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND
CHANGES TO ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS
Of the 28 respondents (7.4 percent) who commented about changes in
employment services and the advent of one-stop career centers, about
a third felt positively about the prospective changes, while
two-thirds expressed anxiety. Those who expressed concern feared
that veterans would not receive priority and would not continue to
receive needed services:
"Being the only state to allow private industry bids for
one-stop career centers, we are in turmoil to help vets and
other clients. [We] can't access job details for areas served
by private one-stops. One-stop centers have become a political
issue with total fragmentation of our system--the loser is the
job hunting client. I cannot control this but see it as a major
problem affecting the public and vets."
PROTECT VETERANS' SERVICES
In general, the comments on the LVER and DVOP questionnaire were
highly favorable toward veterans. Over 17 percent of the respondents
specifically discussed title 38 and provided testimonials about how
important it is to continue providing veterans' employment services.
"The LVER/DVOP Program is a key to the only help some veterans
will receive, don't throw away that key to that help. Fund the
Employment Services and the LVER/DVOP Program as it should be
and let us continue helping veterans and others as they should
be helped."
"Keep the DVER/DVOP-LVER vet employment representation program .
. . it is one of the few cost-effective and successful
programs in . . . government that actually works!"
"Veterans allow us to have rights, it's important that we as a
nation protect their rights."
TABLES SUPPORTING FIGURES IN
REPORT TEXT
=========================================================== Appendix X
Table X.1
Data for Figure 4--1997 Cost per DVOP
Position
Cost category States
------------------------------ --------------------------------------
$60,000+ Alaska, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New
York, Washington, and Wisconsin
$40,000-$60,000 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, and Wyoming
Under $40,000 Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost per position for District of Columbia is $66,667; for
Puerto Rico, $24,222. There are no DVOP specialist positions in the
Virgin Islands.
Table X.2
Data for Figure 5--1997 DVOP
Administrative and Support Expenses
Number
of
Percentage of grant spent states
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Under 20 4
20-24 24
25-29 16
30-34 7
35+ 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Number of states does not total 53 because the Virgin Islands
have no DVOP specialists.
Table X.3
Data for Figure 6--1997 Cost per LVER
Position
Cost category States
------------------------------ --------------------------------------
$60,000+ Alaska, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania,
Washington, and Wisconsin
$40,000-$60,000 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and
Wyoming
Under $40,000 Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, and
West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost per LVER position for the District of Columbia is
$65,385; for Puerto Rico, $26,625; for the Virgin Islands, $48,000.
Table X.4
Data for Figure 7--1997 LVER
Administrative and Support Expense
Number
of
Percentage of grant spent states
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Under 20 8
20-24 24
25-29 15
30-34 6
35+ 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X.5
Data for Figure 8--Placement Rate for
Nonveterans and Veterans
Number of states
--------------------------
Percentage placed Nonveterans Veterans
------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------
0-10 18 2
11-20 26 18
21-30 7 19
31-40 2 12
41-50 0 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X.6
Data for Figure 9--DVOP and LVER
Educational Requirements
Number of
states
--------------
Education requirement DVOP LVER
------------------------------------------------------ ------ ------
None 15 12
High school diploma/GED 10 8
Some college or 2-year degree 4 3
4-year college degree 23 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total for number of states with DVOP education requirement
does not add to 53 because the Virgin Islands have no DVOP positions.
Table X.7
Data for Figure 10--DVOP and LVER
Average Starting and Full-Performance
Salaries
Salary DVOP LVER
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
Starting $21,846 $23,001
Full performance $32,308 $34,739
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X.8
Data for Figure 11--DVOP and LVER Length
of Military Service
Years of military service DVOP LVER
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
Up to 2 years 15 22
More than 2 to 4 years 23 29
More than 4 to 8 years 9 9
More than 8 to 12 years 4 5
More than 12 to 20 years 5 4
More than 20 years 44 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X.9
Data for Figure 12--DVOP and LVER Decade
Separated/Retired From Active Duty
Percent
----------------------
Decade separated/retired DVOP LVER
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
1940s Under 1 1
percent
1950s 2 5
1960s 19 24
1970s 33 40
1980s 25 22
1990s 21 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Table X.10
Data for Figure 13--Educational
Attainment of DVOP and LVER Staff
Percent
----------------------
Educational level DVOP LVER
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
High school diploma/GED 4 4
Some college or 2-year degree 46 39
4-year degree 27 34
Graduate school 23 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Table X.11
Data for Figure 14--Age of DVOP and LVER
Staff
Percent
----------------------
Age group DVOP LVER
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
40 and under 4 6
41-45 14 10
46-50 38 33
51-55 24 24
56-60 11 16
Over 60 10 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Table X.12
Data for Figure 15--DVOP Client
Characteristics and Time Allocation
Percentage of
----------------------
Clients
Client level served Time spent
---------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
Level I 29 20
Level II 44 42
Level III 28 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Table X.13
Data for Figure 16--LVER Client
Characteristics and Time Allocation
Percentage of
------------------------------
Client level Clients served Time spent
-------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Level I 33 21
Level II 47 46
Level III 21 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Table X.14
Data for Figure 17--Percentage of DVOP
and LVER Staff Assisting VR&C Clients
Number
of
Percentage assisting states
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
0-50 6
50.1-60 11
60.1-70 15
70.1-80 8
80.1-90 9
90.1+ 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X.15
Data for Figure 18--Percentage of DVOP
and LVER Staff Providing TAP Assistance
Number
of
Percentage assisting states
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------
0-7.5 9
7.6-15.0 16
15.1-22.5 8
22.6-30.0 11
30.1-37.5 7
37.6+ 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
=========================================================== Appendix X
(See figure in printed edition.)
GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix XII
GAO CONTACTS
Sigurd Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7003
Betty Clark, Evaluator-in-Charge, (617) 565-7524
Denise Hunter, Senior Evaluator, (617) 565-7536
STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In addition to those named above, the following individuals provided
valuable technical assistance to this report: Dianne Murphy Blank,
Linda Choy, Wayne Dow, Arthur Merriam, and Kelly Mikelson.
*** End of document. ***