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 resumï¿½ 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 resumï¿½ 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. ***