This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-176 
entitled 'Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions 
Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to 
Veterans' Employment Services' which was released on December 30, 2005. 

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

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

December 2005: 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: 

Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States 
Implement Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services: 

GAO-06-176: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-176, a report to congressional committees: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in recent months, a 
figure that could swell considerably with the anticipated increase in 
the number of people leaving active duty. Congress passed the Jobs for 
Veterans Act in 2002 to improve employment and training services for 
veterans and to encourage employers to hire them. As mandated by law, 
GAO reviewed progress to date in its implementation, including the 
development of new staff roles and responsibilities, performance 
accountability system, incentive awards, and priority of service to 
veterans. GAO examined (1) implementation status of the key provisions 
and any associated challenges, (2) what is known about services and 
outcomes since the law’s enactment, and (3) changes in program 
accountability. 

What GAO Found: 

Labor implemented most provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) 
within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, some are not fully 
implemented, such as measures to increase service priority for veterans 
in the full spectrum of Labor’s training programs, and others designed 
to improve accountability from states and federal contractors. States 
also report substantial progress implementing the law, but challenges 
remain in some areas. About one-third of the states, for example, did 
not establish incentive award programs for their workforce personnel 
because their laws, policies, or agreements conflict with this JVA 
provision. 

Most state workforce administrators surveyed reported that the new 
legislation has improved both the quality of services to veterans and 
their employment outcomes. They credited the greater availability of 
case management services under JVA for much of the improvement in 
employment. They cited lack of federal contractor compliance with the 
law’s provisions as most likely to have limited veterans’ employment 
opportunities. Aside from the law’s influence, they cited the 
willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local 
job market as significant factors affecting veterans’ employment. 

About half of state directors of Veterans’ Employment and Training 
reported their new monitoring role had strengthened local program 
accountability. However, just over a third reported that accountability 
had either lessened or not improved. Some partly attributed this to 
absence of local performance data and fewer annual visits to one-stop 
centers. GAO found, as well, that a lack of coordination among Labor’s 
agencies responsible for certain JVA provisions has weakened 
accountability. Also, while Labor has developed a system to monitor 
program performance, it lacks a strategy for using the information it 
gathers to make improvements and to help states. 

Advertisement on City Bus for the Hire Vets First Promotional Campaign: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that the Department of Labor provide clear guidance 
that would integrate veterans’ staff into the one-stops, ensure 
priority of service for veterans among all programs, and foster state 
use of incentives. GAO is also recommending that Labor’s program 
offices coordinate their oversight regarding JVA provisions, and that 
Labor use monitoring results to develop program improvements. Finally, 
GAO recommends that Labor establish effective methods for enforcing 
federal contractor requirements. Labor agreed with these 
recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-176. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Most JVA Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but Not without Some 
Challenges: 

State Administrators Reported Improvement in Veterans' Services and 
Employment Outcomes: 

Absence of Local Level Data and Lack of Coordinated Oversight Weaken 
Program Accountability: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 
2003 and 2005: 

Appendix III: State Incentive Award Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal 
Year 2004: 

Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for Veterans Entering Employment 
through the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 2004 and 2005: 

Appendix V: States' Use of Full-Time and Part-Time Veterans' Staff: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA: 

Table 2: Summary of Labor's Completed and Planned Actions to Implement 
Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005: 

Table 3: Veterans' Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job Seekers, 
Program Year 2003: 

Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures and 
Reporting Requirements: 

Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff: 

Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments on the 
Quality of Labor's Guidance and Assistance on New Roles for Veterans' 
Staff: 

Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the President's 
National Hire Veterans Committee through Fiscal Year 2005: 

Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee's Promotional Activities Have 
Benefited Veterans in Obtaining Employment: 

Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent of 
Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005: 

Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans' Staff in Local Offices: 

Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration, 
Morale, and Performance: 

Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted: 

Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment: 

Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining 
Employment: 

Figure 10: Extent That VETS' New Monitoring Role Strengthened 
Performance Accountability at the Local Level: 

Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS' Monitoring Tools Strengthened 
Performance Accountability: 

Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities between 
VETS and ETA: 

Abbreviations: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CPS: Current Population Survey: 

DVOP: Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program: 

ETA: Employment and Training Administration: 

JVA: Jobs for Veterans Act: 

LAUS: Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 

LVER: Local Veterans' Employment Representative: 

NVTI: National Veterans' Training Institute: 

OFCCP: Office of Contract Compliance Programs: 

VETS: Veterans' Employment and Training Service: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

December 30, 2005: 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Daniel Akaka: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Steve Buyer: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lane Evans: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

In recent years, roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in any 
given month, and that figure could swell considerably with the 
anticipated increase in the number of service members currently leaving 
active duty and returning to civilian life--approximately 200,000 a 
year, according to the Department of Labor (Labor). Since we last 
reported on veterans' employment and training services,[Footnote 1] 
Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) to improve employment 
and training services for veterans and to encourage employers to hire 
them. The act made several changes to the two Labor programs that focus 
exclusively on veterans and that are administered by the Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service (VETS): the Disabled Veterans' Outreach 
Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative 
program (LVER). It clarified the respective roles of DVOP and LVER 
staff and required the establishment of a performance accountability 
system, and an incentive award program. JVA provided states 
administering the programs more flexibility by funding both programs 
through one allocation, allowing states to choose the mix of staff and 
whether they would be hired on a full-time or part-time basis. 
Additionally, it called for the integration of DVOP and LVER staff into 
the one-stop delivery system established in 1998 under the Workforce 
Investment Act (WIA) to streamline services provided by federal 
employment and training programs. JVA expanded Labor's focus on 
veterans by requiring that all of the agency's training programs give 
veterans priority in receiving their services, within their target 
population. It also required Labor to establish a national minimum 
standard--or threshold--for veterans' employment. Finally, to encourage 
businesses to hire veterans, the act established a committee to develop 
a national campaign promoting veterans and updated existing 
requirements that employers who receive federal contracts advertise job 
openings at the appropriate employment service delivery system and 
report on their veteran hiring practices. 

In light of the many changes introduced by the Jobs for Veterans Act, 
and as mandated by the act, we conducted a study on the implementation 
of its provisions. In reviewing federal and state progress in carrying 
out the act's provisions, we examined (1) the implementation status of 
the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is known 
about services and outcomes since the law's enactment, and (3) how 
accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach and 
Local Veterans' Employment Representative programs. 

To obtain information to address our objectives, we administered two 
surveys, one to the state directors of veterans' employment and 
training and the other to state workforce administrators in all 50 
states and the District of Columbia. We received responses from all 51 
state directors of veterans' employment and training and 50 state 
workforce administrators[Footnote 2]. We validated the survey 
instruments through pretest but did not verify the information 
respondents provided. To further understand local area approaches to 
JVA implementation, we visited 10 local one-stop centers in five 
states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and Washington. We 
selected these states on the basis of several criteria, including 
geographic dispersion, range of sizes as determined by funding 
allocation, whether the state had implemented JVA's incentive award 
program, and recommendations by Labor, veterans' service organizations, 
and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. On the basis 
of these organizations' recommendations, we then chose two local one- 
stop centers that were either further along in implementation or were 
facing some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included 
interviews with officials from the Veterans' Employment and Training 
Service and state workforce agency; at the local level, we interviewed 
one-stop management and staff, including veterans' staff. In addition, 
we also visited the National Veterans' Training Institute in Denver, 
Colorado, where we interviewed training officials, state-level 
Veterans' Employment and Training officials, and veterans' staff from 
24 states who were attending training classes. We also met with 
representatives of various veterans' service organizations and the 
National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Finally, we spoke 
with federal officials at other Labor agencies responsible for 
implementing JVA, including the Employment and Training Administration 
(ETA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Women's Bureau, 
Office of Disability Employment Policy, and Bureau of International 
Labor Affairs. For a greater discussion of our scope and methodology, 
see appendix I. Our work was conducted between January and November 
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Labor took action to implement most JVA provisions within the first 2 
years of the new legislation. For example, Labor issued guidance on new 
roles and responsibilities for DVOP and LVER staff as well as 
implemented a new funding formula for allocating grant funds to states. 
However, federal actions are still outstanding for certain provisions 
designed to give priority to veterans in Labor training programs, 
update federal contractor regulations, and improve state accountability 
for veteran employment. For example, Labor agencies have not provided 
complete guidance to grantees required to provide priority of service 
to veterans in the various Labor training programs, or on reporting 
requirements. In addition, the department anticipates it will be 2007 
before sufficient trend data will be available to replace individual 
state goals for veterans' employment with a national standard common to 
all states. Also, Labor has not updated regulations on federal 
contractors' hiring and reporting practices because of a lack of 
consensus and coordination on how to implement and enforce this 
provision. States reported good progress in implementing provisions 
through October 2005, but challenges remain in certain states and local 
areas. For example, most states reported that veterans' staff have 
transitioned to their new roles and responsibilities in over 75 percent 
of local workforce offices, but that integration with other staff in 
some local offices remains a challenge. Similarly, about one-third of 
states reported that they did not establish incentive programs 
recognizing high-quality veterans' services because this JVA 
requirement conflicts with state laws, policies, or collective 
bargaining agreements. While most state workforce administrators 
reported on our survey that good progress has been made in implementing 
priority of service for veterans in Labor training programs, officials 
in some areas we visited were unaware of or confused by Labor's 
guidance on this JVA requirement. 

Most state workforce administrators reported that the new legislation 
has improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled 
veterans, and has also improved employment outcomes. They credited the 
greater availability of case management services through DVOP staff, 
citing this factor most often in helping veterans obtain employment. In 
contrast, state administrators reported that the lack of federal 
contractor compliance with the requirement to list job openings at the 
local one-stop centers has limited veteran employment opportunities. 
Non-JVA factors also played a significant role in employment outcomes. 
In particular, administrators cited the willingness of employers to 
hire veterans and the strength of the local job market as significant 
factors. 

While about half of state VETS directors reported that their monitoring 
role under JVA had strengthened local accountability for the DVOP and 
LVER programs, just over a third reported that it had either lessened 
or not improved. Monitoring tools most often reported to strengthen 
accountability were analysis of local level performance data and site 
visits to local offices. However, VETS directors in 21 states reported 
that local-level data were unavailable, potentially limiting federal 
oversight of local office performance in these states to site visits 
conducted every 5 years. Although not specifically required by JVA, the 
lack of coordinated oversight by agencies within Labor that share 
responsibility for implementing certain JVA provisions weakens 
performance accountability. For example, only five state VETS directors 
reported taking a coordinated approach with ETA to monitor local office 
performance, share results, and take corrective action. Also, in terms 
of federal oversight, VETS lacks a strategy to use monitoring results 
to improve program performance. For example, state performance goals 
for the rate at which veterans enter employment range from 38 percent 
to 65 percent, but VETS has not proactively identified why goals are 
lower in some states than in other states and targeted these states for 
assistance. 

To improve the way JVA is implemented, we are making a number of 
recommendations to Labor regarding integration of veterans' staff into 
the one-stops, priority of service across all programs, best practices 
on awarding performance incentives, coordinated monitoring efforts, and 
also implementation and enforcement of federal contractor requirements. 

In its written comments, Labor generally concurred with our findings 
and recommendations. 

Background: 

JVA[Footnote 3] amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the legislation that 
governs the DVOP and LVER programs, and by doing so, introduced an 
array of reforms to the way employment, training, and placement 
services are provided to veterans. (See table 1.) JVA addressed 
concerns raised by some that Title 38 was overly prescriptive and did 
not provide states the flexibility to determine the best way to serve 
veteran job seekers. For example, JVA amended Title 38 by removing 
provisions detailing the specific duties of DVOP and LVER staff and how 
they were to be assigned.[Footnote 4] Under JVA, the states have the 
authority to employ, subject to Labor's approval, a sufficient number 
of full or part-time DVOP staff to provide intensive services to 
eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled veterans and others as 
Labor determines. Similarly, JVA gives the states authority to employ a 
sufficient number of LVERs to carry out employment, training, and 
placement services, including conducting outreach to employers and 
facilitating services furnished to veterans under the applicable state 
employment service delivery systems. Beginning July 2003, states and 
localities were required to implement JVA provisions. 

Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA: 

State funding: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* Funding is available by grant or contract through two separate 
allocations, each with its own funding formula that prescribes total 
number and location of DVOP and LVER staff for each state; 
* States submit grant applications to request funding; 
JVA: 
* Funding is available by grant or contract through one allocation 
under a new funding formula that allows states to determine number of 
DVOP and LVER staff; 
* Requires state plan as a condition of funding, which must include a 
description of how veterans' staff will be integrated into the service 
delivery system, their duties, and the veterans' population to be 
served. 

Staff roles and responsibilities: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* Prescribes 11 specific duties for DVOP staff and 13 for LVER staff; 
* Only LVER staff may be assigned on a part-time basis; 
JVA: 
* Clearly distinguishes DVOP and LVER staff roles and gives states 
flexibility in deciding their duties; 
* Allows both types of staff to be assigned on a part-time basis. 

Priority of service: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive priority of 
service in those federally funded employment and training programs that 
specifically require it; 
JVA: 
* Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive priority of 
service in all Labor-funded employment and training programs. 

Performance accountability: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* Performance measures emphasize processes over outcomes; 
* National standard not required; 
* Each local employment office evaluated annually; 
JVA: 
* Comprehensive performance accountability system consistent with WIA 
performance measures; 
* National performance standard for the rate at which veterans enter 
employment, a rate that all states are expected to meet; 
* Annual performance reviews of veterans' services without specifying 
how many local offices will be evaluated. 

Incentive awards: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* No incentive award program; 
JVA: 
* Incentive award program to encourage the improvement and 
modernization of veterans' services and recognize exemplary staff. 

Committees: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* No such committee; 
JVA: 
* President's National Hire Veterans Committee to market veterans as a 
viable workforce resource. 

Federal contractors: 

Title 38 before JVA amendments: 
* Requires regulations for employers with federal contracts of $25,000 
or more to list all their job openings as appropriate, give veterans 
priority in referral to those jobs, and report on their hiring 
practices; 
JVA: 
* Raises federal contract threshold amount to $100,000 or more, 
requires contractors to list their job openings and give veterans 
priority in referral to those jobs, and modifies categories of veterans 
to be reported. 

Source: GAO analysis of Title 38 and JVA legislation. 

[End of table] 

Within Labor, two agencies---VETS and ETA--share responsibility for 
helping the nation's veterans find employment. Among the programs that 
VETS administers are the DVOP and LVER programs, which were funded at 
about $162 million in fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 5] Prior to JVA, 
funding for these two programs was allocated as two separate grants to 
states. Under JVA, however, the DVOP and LVER grants are allocated as 
one funding stream to states, and states use this funding to support 
nearly 2,400 veterans' specialist and representative positions 
nationwide. To promote the professional competence of these veterans' 
service providers, VETS received about $2 million in fiscal year 2005 
for the National Veterans' Training Institute to develop and deliver 
training. In addition, JVA authorized funding for the newly created 
President's National Hire Veterans Committee at a level of $3 million 
annually, from fiscal year 2003 through 2005, to carry out its 
marketing and promotional activities, and stipulated that the committee 
would terminate in February 2006, 2 months after issuing a final annual 
report on its activities. 

VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that 
includes representation in each of Labor's six regions and staff in 
each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers 
the agency's activities through regional administrators and state 
directors. The state directors are the link between VETS and the 
states' employment service system that is overseen by ETA. The DVOP and 
LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part of states' 
public employment services. 

Employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers 
the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services program, providing a 
national system of public employment services to any individual seeking 
employment--including a veteran--who is authorized to work in the 
United States. Thus, those veterans considered job ready and not in 
need of intensive services from a DVOP could instead be served by 
employment service staff and receive such services as assessment, 
counseling, job readiness evaluation, and placement. Veterans would 
also be eligible to receive WIA-funded services. Like VETS, ETA carries 
out its employment service program through staff in Labor's six regions 
and workforce agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2005, ETA 
requested about $700 million for the Wagner-Peyser program. 

The DVOP and LVER programs, along with the Employment Services program, 
are all mandatory partners in the one-stop center system created in 
1998 by WIA and overseen by Labor, in which services provided by 
numerous employment and training programs are made available through a 
single network. JVA requires that veterans be given priority of service 
in any job training program administered by Labor. This requirement 
affects 23 Labor-funded workforce programs, including WIA and Wagner- 
Peyser Employment Services. Labor's guidance requires states to modify 
their strategic plans for workforce investment for the next 2 years, 
addressing how veterans will be given priority and how veterans' 
services will be provided through the state's one-stop service delivery 
system. 

Most JVA Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but Not without Some 
Challenges: 

Labor's implementation of JVA has been on track, with most provisions 
in place within the first 2 years of the new legislation. For example, 
Labor timely implemented new roles and responsibilities for veterans' 
staff as well as the new funding formula for allocating grant funds to 
states. However, Labor's implementation is still pending for provisions 
designed to give veterans priority for participating in all Labor's 
training programs, govern federal contractor hiring practices, and 
improve states' accountability for increasing veterans' employment. 
States also report good progress in implementing provisions, but 
challenges remain in some local areas in terms of integrating veterans' 
staff with other staff in local workforce centers and establishing 
incentive programs as provided in JVA for recognizing quality services 
to veterans. 

Labor Is Generally on Track in Implementing Most JVA Provisions: 

Labor has taken actions to implement most JVA provisions to reform 
veterans' services since the law was enacted in November 2002. For 
example, Labor has issued guidance clarifying the new roles and 
responsibilities for veterans' staff, and has established criteria in 
regulation, to implement the new funding formula for allocating grant 
funds to states. (See table 2.) Additional Labor actions may be needed 
to ensure progress in implementing other JVA provisions. These include 
issuance of regulations requiring recent federal contractors to list 
job openings and report on their veterans hiring practices, and 
development of a national standard for veteran employment, needed to 
complete its new performance accountability system for states. 

Table 2: Summary of Labor's Completed and Planned Actions to Implement 
Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005: 

Prior to JVA: 

Provision: Veterans' staff roles and responsibilities; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* VETS issued first of several guidance letters in September 2002. 
National Veterans' Training Institute subsequently began conducting 
training on JVA provisions for veterans' staff in 2003; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* Updates will occur as necessary. 

JVA Enacted November 7, 2002: 

First full program year following JVA[A]: 

Provision: Performance accountability; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* VETS issued a guidance letter on new performance measures in July 
2003; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* Labor anticipates that it will be 2007 before it can establish a 
national standard that states must meet for veterans entering 
employment. 

Provision: Priority of service; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* ETA issued its first guidance letter for 15 programs in September 
2003; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* Two of three other Labor agencies plan to issue guidance for their 
programs. 

Provision: National Hire Veterans Committee; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* Secretary of Labor began appointing members in 2003; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* None. 

First full fiscal year following JVA[B]: 

Provision: State grant funding; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* VETS allocated grants to states phased in over a 2-year period 
beginning fiscal year 2004; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* None. 

Provision: Incentive awards; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* VETS allocated incentive award funds to states beginning in fiscal 
year 2004; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* None. 

Second full fiscal year following JVA: 

Provision: Federal contractors; 
Labor's completed actions: 
* VETS and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) 
drafted regulations on contractor affirmative action, job listings, and 
reporting requirements; 
Labor's planned actions: 
* VETS and OFCCP anticipate issuing regulations in early 2006. 

Source: GAO analysis of JVA provisions and Labor information. 

[A] Program year 2003 was the first full program year under JVA and ran 
from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004. 

[B] Fiscal year 2004 was the first full fiscal year under JVA and ran 
from October 1, 2003, to September 30, 2004. 

[End of table] 

Staff Roles and Responsibilities: 

VETS took several steps to prepare veterans' staff for their new roles 
and responsibilities under the law. VETS issued guidance and held 
training classes, but officials cite challenges in providing all staff 
with training on their new roles and responsibilities because of 
resource limitations on the number of classes. VETS took action in 
September 2002, before JVA was enacted, to issue guidance for DVOP and 
LVER staff, and directed the National Veterans' Training Institute 
(NVTI) to design training seminars to facilitate state and local 
implementation in the next program year.[Footnote 6] The initial VETS 
guidance, updated in later years, explained how the DVOP staff roles 
and responsibilities were to transition to exclusively focus on 
intensive services and outreach to veterans, while LVER staff were to 
exclusively focus on outreach to employers and community organizations, 
training other staff on veterans' issues, and quarterly reporting on 
compliance with the law. Subsequent guidance issued in July 2005 
discussed, among other topics, the flexibility states have under JVA to 
decide number of DVOP and LVER staff hired on a full-time or part-time 
basis. The later guidance also instructed each workforce area to report 
quarterly on veterans' services. Almost three-quarters of the 50 state 
workforce officials reported on our survey that the quality of Labor's 
formal written guidance and technical assistance was good or excellent 
in terms of facilitating implementation of new staff duties. (See fig. 
1.) Conversely, no more than a dozen states characterized the guidance 
and assistance as fair or poor. 

Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments on the 
Quality of Labor's Guidance and Assistance on New Roles for Veterans' 
Staff: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Shortly after JVA was enacted, Labor's training institute held a series 
of implementation seminars that were attended by representatives from 
all states. The institute continues to conduct and fund training for 
DVOP and LVER staff. At the end of its first training year in October 
2004, the institute reported having trained 282 DVOP staff in case 
management. Similarly, at the end of its second training year in 2005, 
the institute reported that 240 LVER staff were trained in employer 
outreach. NVTI estimated that an additional 144 DVOP and 240 LVER staff 
would be trained in these two courses each year in the future, but had 
concerns that these numbers would cover only about 16 percent of all 
veterans' staff each year, while annual staff turnover was averaging 
about 18 percent. Training institute officials estimated that 48 
additional sessions would be required to meet the needs of all staff in 
these two course offerings in addition to the 80 training sessions 
planned for veterans' staff over the institute's 5-year contract 
period. 

VETS officials confirmed a need for expanded training opportunities but 
said that their authority to reallocate resources to NVTI is 
limited.[Footnote 7] Overall, state and local workforce officials were 
pleased with the quality of NVTI training. For example, a DVOP in a one-
stop center in California found that NVTI classes provided a valuable 
opportunity to network and exchange ideas with other participants from 
around the country. In a survey comment, a state administrator also 
said that the NVTI Web site has been useful in helping the state keep 
up with all aspects of JVA implementation and that the state makes 
extensive use of NVTI's electronic discussion board to communicate with 
other states. 

Funding Formula: 

VETS began using JVA's method for allocating DVOP and LVER grant funds 
to states in the fiscal year beginning in October 2003. Under JVA, the 
previously separate DVOP and LVER grants were merged into one grant for 
veterans' staff, and states are now required to submit an application 
for funding containing a plan describing how the state will furnish the 
required employment, training and placement services, the veteran 
population to be served, and any additional information Labor may 
require. Labor was to award funds proportionately to the states with 
approved applications, based on a ratio of the total number of veterans 
residing in the state that are seeking employment to the total number 
of veterans seeking employment in all states using criteria that Labor 
may establish in regulation. JVA required Labor to phase in this new 
method of providing funding to the states and provided that it may 
establish minimum funding levels and hold harmless criteria for the 
states. 

VETS issued a final rule establishing criteria for making funds 
available for veterans' employment services. It reserved up to 4 
percent of the grant money available for unexpected needs and 
transition assistance programs[Footnote 8] and allocated grants to 
states using the new formula prescribed by law.[Footnote 9] During the 
first 2 years of the required 3-year phase-in period, states were 
provided with (1) a hold harmless rate of no less than 80 percent of 
its previous year's allocation during fiscal year 2005 and 90 percent 
thereafter, and (2) a minimum funding level of 0.28 percent of the 
prior year's total funding level for all states. For example, the 
minimum funding level for fiscal year 2004 was $439,000 ($156,811,000 x 
.0028). Under the new formula, 4 states received about the same amount 
of funding, while 31 states received a decrease of 5 percent or more 
and 16 states received at least a 5 percent increase between fiscal 
years 2003 and 2005. (See app. II for state funding allocations.) 

Incentive Awards Program: 

VETS issued guidance in May 2003 for an incentive award program to be 
implemented by states in the first fiscal year after JVA. This guidance 
laid out eligibility and selection criteria and examples of nonmonetary 
awards, giving states flexibility to tailor their awards programs. JVA 
required that states establish an incentive program to recognize 
eligible employees for excellence or demonstrable improvement in the 
provision of employment, training, and placement services. Under JVA, 
Labor is to establish criteria, in consultation with the states, to be 
used by the states in setting up the required incentive program. The 
law provides further that the form of incentive award may be either a 
cash or a nonfinancial award, as Labor may specify. The act provided 
that beginning in program years during or after fiscal year 2004, 1 
percent of the annual grant funds is to be used for making cash awards 
under the state's incentive award program. 

In accordance with JVA, VETS mandated that 1 percent of each state's 
grant amount be used for incentive payments to staff. In total, VETS 
allocated about $1.5 million for the incentive program in fiscal years 
2004 and 2005. Of this amount, states used about $600,000 (40 percent) 
during the first year of implementation, and VETS officials stated that 
the remaining unexpended funds were returned to the Treasury. In 
addition, VETS does not anticipate returning any incentive funds to the 
Treasury in 2005. Instead, VETS informed Congress that any unspent 
funds will be reallocated to the DVOP and LVER programs, according to 
officials. (See app. III for state incentive program allocation and 
expenditures in fiscal year 2004.) 

Priority of Service: 

Labor has only partially implemented the JVA requirement to give 
priority service to veterans in its many employment training programs. 
JVA added a new section to Title 38 on priority to veterans and spouses 
of certain veterans in receiving employment and training services 
through Labor-funded programs. In that section, Labor is given 
authority to establish priorities among covered persons to take into 
account the needs of disabled veterans and special disabled veterans. 
This provision applies to 23 employment and training programs operated 
by five Labor agencies--VETS, ETA, Women's Bureau, Office of Disability 
Employment Policy, and the Bureau of International Labor Affairs. 
Veterans automatically receive priority of service in the five programs 
operated by VETS because these programs serve veterans exclusively. 
However, for programs that serve additional populations and are 
operated by other Labor agencies, priority of service for veterans is 
applied differently once veterans meet the programs' eligibility 
requirements. For example, under ETA's Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment 
Services program, priority is to be given first to veterans and then to 
all others. By contrast, under ETA's Senior Community Service 
Employment program, priority is given to low-income individuals who are 
first veterans and their qualified spouses aged 60 years or older; 
second, other individuals who are at least 60 years old; third, 
veterans and their qualified spouses who are 55 to 59 years old; and 
fourth, other individuals who are 55 to 59 years old. 

These Labor agencies are in different stages of providing guidance and 
reporting requirements for veterans' service priority to the grantees 
of their respective programs. ETA, for example, was somewhat delayed in 
issuing an initial guidance letter for its 15 programs, notifying 
grantees of the law's general requirements in September 2003, several 
months after the first program year following JVA began. Both the 
Women's Bureau and the Office of Disability Employment Policy have 
included language on priority of service in their 2003 grant 
solicitations, but officials told us that they have not issued further 
guidance or established reporting requirements. In addition, officials 
at the Bureau of International Labor Affairs said that their agency 
funds overseas projects for which veterans are not eligible, such as a 
project in Indonesia that focuses on the prevention of child labor. 

Labor did not issue its required annual report to Congress for the 
first program year of JVA, and its report to Congress for program year 
2004 contained incomplete information regarding veterans' priority 
among its training programs. JVA required Labor's annual report to 
include three issues (1) whether veterans are receiving priority of 
service; (2) whether they are being fully served; and (3) whether the 
representation of veterans in programs is in proportion to their 
representation in the labor market. Labor did not collect and report 
data on the first two requirements for any of its programs, and 
information on the third requirement was incomplete. Of its 23 programs 
subject to the law's requirement, Labor reported veterans' 
participation rates for only 11 ETA programs. (See table 3.) ETA 
officials said that they were unable to collect data from participants 
in all their programs because grantee data collection systems were not 
in place. 

The data that Labor reported for 11 of its programs showed that 
veterans are essentially represented in proportion to their labor force 
participation rate of 9.5 percent in five ETA programs that were aimed 
at adult job seekers, while six programs fell short of the 9.5 percent 
target participation rate. The report indicated that programs with 
lower veteran participation rates tended to be those least applicable 
to veterans, such as programs for migrant farm workers or youth. 

Table 3: Veterans' Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job Seekers, 
Program Year 2003: 

ETA adult programs: Wagner-Peyser Employment Services; 
Number of veterans served: 1,421,977; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.4. 

ETA adult programs: Trade Act; 
Number of veterans served: 4,970; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 13.6. 

ETA adult programs: WIA Adults; 
Number of veterans served: 31,588; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 7.1. 

ETA adult programs: WIA Dislocated Workers; 
Number of veterans served: 34,943; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.6. 

ETA adult programs: Senior Community Services Employment, age 55 and 
up; 
Number of veterans served: 10,853; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 10.1. 

ETA adult programs: America's Job Bank; 
Number of veterans served: 150,327; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 15.8. 

ETA adult programs: National Emergency Grants; 
Number of veterans served: 3,013; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 10.5. 

ETA adult programs: H-1B Skills Grants[A]; 
Number of veterans served: 1,454; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 6.2. 

ETA adult programs: Native American; 
Number of veterans served: 398; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 2.2. 

ETA adult programs: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker, adults; 
Number of veterans served: 308; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 1.0. 

ETA adult programs: Job Corps; 
Number of veterans served: 114; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 0.2. 

ETA adult programs: Total; 
Number of veterans served: 1,659,945; 
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.7. 

Source: VETS 2004 annual report to Congress. 

[A] Data collected and reported by 84.3 percent of H-1B grantees who 
were operational in 2004. 

[End of table] 

Performance Accountability: 

VETS established some new performance measures for the DVOP and LVER 
grant programs, issuing guidance for state implementation beginning 
July 2003, but officials state that it will be at least 2007 before 
VETS can establish a national standard for employment outcomes that it 
will require all states to meet. Under JVA, Labor was required, by May 
2003, to establish and implement a comprehensive performance 
accountability system to measure the performance of employment service 
delivery systems, including disabled veterans' outreach program 
specialists and local veterans' employment representatives. The 
standards and measures in that system are supposed to be consistent 
with state performance measures under WIA and be appropriately weighted 
to provide special consideration for placement of veterans requiring 
intensive services and veterans who enroll in readjustment counseling. 
Additionally, Labor is required by JVA to issue regulations 
establishing a uniform national threshold entered-employment rate for 
veterans. As required by JVA, VETS based the new performance measures 
on those for WIA. In doing so, it dropped two process measures--number 
of veterans receiving counseling or some reportable service. It also 
added several others focused primarily on outcomes--employment rates 
following either staff-assisted or intensive services, and employment 
retention rate. (See table 4.) VETS officials told us they made 
additional modifications to the performance accountability system when, 
in July 2005, they adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
new common performance measures. Under this change, VETS established a 
new performance measure for individuals who got a job by comparing 
their earnings 6 months before they enroll in a program with earnings 6 
months after they exit the program. 

Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures and 
Reporting Requirements: 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Entered employment rate; 
Before program year 2002: Yes; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed 
in training; 
Before program year 2002: Yes; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: No; 
Program year 2005: No. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans 
receiving counseling; 
Before program year 2002: Yes; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: No; 
Program year 2005: No. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans 
receiving some reportable service; 
Before program year 2002: Yes; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: No; 
Program year 2005: No. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Federal contractor jobs 
filled by Vietnam and special disabled veterans; 
Before program year 2002: Yes; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: No; 
Program year 2005: No. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment rate following 
receipt of staff-assisted services; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment rate following 
receipt of intensive services[A]; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment retention rate 
at 6 months; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed 
in federal training; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed 
in federal jobs; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: No. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans that 
entered into federal contractor jobs; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Performance measure or reporting requirement: Earnings increase at 6 
months; 
Before program year 2002: No; 
Program years 2002 to 2004: No; 
Program year 2005: Yes. 

Source: Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor. 

[A] Intensive services were formerly referred to as case management. 

[End of table] 

VETS officials said that they have changed the method they use to 
calculate the entered employment measure and collect source data. 
Initially, VETS measured job placements that tracked whether a veteran 
was referred to, hired, and retained in a specific job. With WIA's 
enactment in 1998, VETS began tracking the entered-employment rate or 
percentage of all registered veterans who were placed in or obtained 
employment. However, states had different policies regarding how and 
when veterans were registered, resulting in inconsistent performance 
data.[Footnote 10] During this time, VETS also moved from a manual 
follow-up system to identify how many veterans obtained jobs to an 
automated system using unemployment insurance wage records.[Footnote 
11] The resulting changes in state reporting systems have delayed the 
setting of a national standard for veterans' employment. VETS 
anticipates that it will need at least 3 years under the OMB measures 
to collect the comparable trend data needed to establish the national 
performance standard holding all states accountable to the same minimum 
goal for veterans entering employment. In the interim, VETS issued 
guidance in May 2004 on how it would negotiate individual performance 
goals with states. These goals ranged from 38 to 65 percent in program 
years 2004 and 2005. (See app. IV.) 

National Hire Veterans Committee: 

Approximately 15 months passed as the Secretary of Labor appointed 
members to the President's National Hire Veterans Committee, and these 
members worked with a contractor to begin the national campaign to make 
employers and businesses more aware of veterans through the public 
workforce system. 

JVA provided for the establishment of the National Hire Veterans 
Committee, whose purpose is to furnish information to employers with 
respect to the training and skills of veterans and disabled veterans, 
and the advantages to employers of hiring veterans with such training 
and skills and to facilitate employment of veterans and disabled 
veterans through participation in America's Career Kit national labor 
exchange and other means. The Secretary of Labor is required to appoint 
the 15 members of the committee and the chairman. Labor is required to 
submit a report to Congress on the activities of the committee annually 
for 2003, 2004, and 2005. The report is to contain data concerning the 
placement and retention of veterans in jobs attributable to the 
activities of the committee. 

Labor initiated action during the third and fourth quarters of calendar 
year 2003 by appointing the 15 committee members from the various 
public and private organizations required by law. Starting in February 
2004, the committee held the first of its required quarterly meetings 
in Washington, D.C., and held nearly all of its six subsequent meetings 
in various parts of the country in order to increase media coverage. 
The meetings allow committee members to monitor activities, develop 
strategies, and hold public forums on veterans' employment issues. 

The committee also hired a contractor in 2004 to carry out a national 
campaign to promote the hiring of veterans and to inform veteran job 
seekers of the public workforce resources available to them. The 
campaign included a Web site,[Footnote 12] activated in October 2004, 
which offered an electronic clearinghouse to facilitate a match between 
employers and veteran job-seekers and help veterans conduct their job 
searches. The campaign has run magazine advertisements in Business Week 
and HR Magazine (the magazine for the Society of Human Resource 
Management) and posted banner ads on electronic job boards that 
targeted private sector employers, advising them to recruit veterans 
through one-stop centers. Finally, the committee persuaded 44 state 
governors to proclaim a "Hire Vets First" month to demonstrate state 
support. 

Although JVA authorized $3 million a year for the committee's 
activities, according to a committee official, these funds were not 
appropriated and funds were drawn from VETS' administrative budget 
instead. The committee has projected that its cumulative total 
expenditures will be about $2.2 million through fiscal year 2005. 
Contract services, which account for approximately 60 percent of 
expenditures, are predominately for implementing the national campaign 
and associated marketing and media activities. (See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the President's 
National Hire Veterans Committee through Fiscal Year 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

A majority of the state workforce administrators reported on our survey 
that the committee's promotional activities have been beneficial to 
some degree in helping veterans get jobs. (See fig. 3.) 

Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee's Promotional Activities Have 
Benefited Veterans in Obtaining Employment: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Federal Contractors: 

Labor has not yet issued updated regulations for federal contractors 
with regard to affirmative action in hiring veterans, although Labor 
officials said they plan to issue regulations in 2006. As with the 
prior Title 38 provision, under JVA, federal contractors are to (1) 
implement affirmative action in employing qualified veterans, (2) list 
their employment openings with the appropriate employment service 
delivery system, and (3) submit an annual report on their hiring and 
employment of qualified veterans. However, JVA amended the Title 38 
provision by raising the dollar amount of covered contracts from 
$25,000 to $100,000 and by modifying the categories of veterans to 
which this provision applies by creating a new definition of "covered 
veteran." In addition, the law added another reporting requirement to 
the annual report, providing that contractors must report the total 
number of all current employees in each job category and at each hiring 
location. JVA provides that these amendments apply to contractors with 
federal contracts of $100,000 or more entered into on or after December 
1, 2003. 

As under the prior Title 38 provision, JVA requires Labor to issue 
regulations implementing these requirements. Labor has not yet issued 
updated regulations, but VETS officials said that Labor plans to issue 
regulations that would, among other things, clarify the new categories 
of covered veterans. In the meantime, Labor has issued guidance stating 
that contractors receiving contracts before December 1, 2003, are 
subject to existing regulations and reporting categories of veterans. 
For contracts awarded on or after December 1, 2003, of $100,000 or 
more, the guidance states that contractors are not required to file the 
annual report until VETS has completed its regulatory clearance process 
and new regulations are published implementing the changes made by JVA. 

Two Labor agencies are responsible for issuing regulations covering 
these requirements--VETS and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs (OFCCP)--but action has been delayed because of a lack of 
consensus and coordination within Labor on how to implement and enforce 
them, according to officials. On the basis of their experience, VETS 
officials were concerned about the feasibility and usefulness of the 
contractor requirements. They said that there is no central repository 
of contractors to identify which ones are subject to the requirements, 
that the reporting requirements are burdensome for employers, and they 
are not relevant in evaluating the program's effectiveness. Further, 
VETS officials said that they lack enforcement authority over 
contractors that do not comply. Instead, OFCCP has this authority. 

VETS has nevertheless drafted regulations requiring contractors to 
report on their veteran hiring practices, and OFCCP has drafted 
regulations concerning affirmative action and job listings. Pending OMB 
approval, they will be issued in early 2006, according to Labor 
officials. Advocates from veterans service organizations believe that 
regulations are necessary to ensure federal contractor compliance, and 
state workforce administrators from 18 states agree--reporting that 
half or fewer local workforce offices had been able to increase the 
number of federal contractor jobs they could list and fill since JVA 
was enacted. 

States Report Good Progress Implementing JVA, but Challenges Remain in 
Certain States and Local Areas: 

State workforce agency administrators report good progress in 
implementing JVA provisions, but challenges remain in certain states 
and local areas. During the first year of JVA implementation, state 
workforce agencies were required to transition veterans' staff to their 
new roles and responsibilities, establish the incentive program to 
enhance staff performance, and implement priority of service to 
veterans in Labor training programs. The majority of state workforce 
administrators reported that three-fourths or more of local offices had 
transitioned veterans' staff to their new roles through greater focus 
on intensive services and employer outreach. (See fig. 4.) State 
administrators also reported the most progress in providing electronic 
services to veterans and least progress in establishing incentive 
programs for improving service to veterans. 

Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent of 
Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Staff Roles and Responsibilities: 

The majority of state workforce administrators reported that veterans' 
staff had transitioned to a greater focus on intensive services and 
employer outreach in most local offices. However, a minority reported 
using JVA's flexibility to establish part-time[Footnote 13] veterans' 
staff positions. Also, integration of veterans' staff into the one-stop 
centers was still problematic in some offices. Our survey data showed 
that 22 states had part-time DVOP staff, 33 used part-time LVER staff, 
and 17 had part-time positions for both types of staff. (See app. V for 
information on states' use of full-and part-time veterans' staff.) VETS 
officials from several states we visited told us that having the 
flexibility to use part-time DVOP and LVER staff allowed the state to 
provide veterans' services in more locations and reach more veterans in 
the community, including those in remote rural areas. However, some 
other state and local workforce officials told us that part-time 
staffing could, in some cases, hamper service to veterans, particularly 
if more than 50 percent of such time were devoted to performing office 
duties such as staffing the reception desk and answering the phone. 

The use of part-time veterans' staff was limited. For example, just 
over half of the states reported not using any part-time DVOP staff in 
their local offices, and over a quarter did not use any part-time 
LVERs. (See fig. 5.) One reason may be lack of guidance in this area. 
About one-quarter (12 states) of state workforce administrators 
responding to our survey characterized Labor's guidance and technical 
assistance for making effective use of part-time veterans' staff as 
fair or poor. 

Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans' Staff in Local Offices: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Finally, Labor officials said that integrating veterans' staff into the 
one-stop offices has been a persistent challenge and can hinder 
services to veterans. According to the DVOP and LVER staff we 
interviewed, the degree of their integration has varied widely in local 
areas and has depended on the level of support from the one-stop 
managers of veterans' programs. For example, one DVOP staff member we 
interviewed told us that the veterans' program is highly integrated 
with the WIA program in her local one-stop, with both DVOP and WIA 
staff sharing case management responsibilities for veterans. In 
addition, she participates in regular meetings with the other one-stop 
partners. She attributed this cohesion to her manager's commitment to 
work cooperatively with all the partners. In contrast, a DVOP staff 
member from another state told us that his manager sometimes resented 
veterans' staff because they do not serve nonveteran clients or help 
with other one-stop activities. 

Another reason cited by veterans' staff for poor levels of integration 
was that other one-stop staff members were not educated or trained to 
serve veterans. In addition, Labor's guidance and technical assistance 
to integrate veterans' staff within the one-stop was ranked only fair 
or poor by more than one-quarter of state workforce administrators 
responding to our survey. Some states have taken action to mitigate the 
challenges. Ohio workforce officials, for example, requested the 
National Veterans' Training Institute to come to their state and 
conduct orientation training for all one-stop partners, identifying the 
training as a best practice, in part to address integration challenges. 
Individual one-stop centers in such states as Ohio and California have 
also taken steps to enhance integration. They have cross-trained other 
partner staff on serving veterans and veterans' staff may potentially 
conduct orientation and job search workshops for mixed groups of job- 
seekers that included veterans. 

Incentive Awards Program: 

Nationwide, 32 of the 50 state workforce administrators we surveyed 
reported implementing an incentive awards program for veterans' 
services. Incentives were perceived by some as effective in improving 
veterans' services in the state. For example, administrators in 16 
states with award programs in place reported that their program had a 
positive effect on improving or modernizing veterans' services. The 
remaining 7 administrators either said that their incentive programs 
had no effect and 8 believed it was still too early to say. Although 
most states had included other one-stop partners in their incentive 
award programs, at least 10 respondents reported that the incentive 
program either had no effect on improving staffs' performance, morale, 
or integration with veteran's staff or that it was too early to tell. 
(See fig. 6.) 

Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration, 
Morale, and Performance: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In the five states we visited, VETS and workforce officials told us the 
incentive program was a good concept. However, not all had implemented 
the program. In fact, 17 states have reported not implementing the 
incentive program.[Footnote 14] For example, California has cited state 
laws prohibiting monetary or other gifts to employees for performing 
their duties. In Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the 
2005 state plans indicated that performance incentive awards were 
incompatible with the states' collective bargaining agreements. Idaho, 
on the other hand, cited potential morale problems among nonveteran 
staff with limited opportunities to serve veterans and was exploring 
other options for creating incentives. VETS officials said that they 
withhold the incentive program money from states that do not implement 
the program. 

States that implemented the incentive program have made awards in 
different ways. In one state, a one time cash award of $1,000 was 
divided among all one-stop staff, amounting to as little as $16 each. 
By contrast, some DVOP staff told us that in another state, individuals 
received as much as $4,000 each. Incentives for staff in one state we 
visited were based on nominations by supervisors using performance 
data, while supervisors in another state were relying on staff to 
nominate themselves. VETS officials told us that some states had been 
more successful than others in designing their awards program and 
acknowledged it would be beneficial to disseminate their ideas and 
practices. 

Priority of Service: 

Workforce administrators in 36 states reported that one-stop centers 
were giving priority of service to veterans entering Labor's training 
programs. However, administrators from 11 other states reported that 
less than half of local offices were providing priority to veterans. 
Whether this has affected veterans' ability to participate in these 
programs is not known. Only four state workforce administrators 
reported that waiting lists for Labor training programs impeded 
employment to a great or very great extent. In contrast, the other 46 
state administrators reported waiting lists were a factor to a lesser 
extent, so that veterans would not necessarily have to be prioritized 
over other job seekers. 

If training resources were to fall short of demand, however, Labor's 
guidance would be insufficient for determining who would receive 
service priority, according to some local one-stop officials we met 
with. Moreover, a 2004 Urban Institute study conducted for Labor 
reported that employment services staff need more training on how to 
implement priority of service across programs.[Footnote 15] ETA issued 
specific program guidance to states on its Web site in 2004, but some 
workforce officials were not aware that ETA had posted additional 
guidance, and other officials still found ETA's guidance confusing and 
incomplete. ETA officials told us that they do not plan to issue any 
further guidance until WIA is reauthorized, at which time they plan to 
respond to all state feedback by issuing a consolidated document for 
all their training programs. However, it is not known when WIA will be 
reauthorized or when the consolidated guidance will be issued. ETA 
officials said that until then, they would work to educate service 
delivery staff by means of national conferences and promotional 
activities at the one-stop centers about how to give priority to 
veterans. 

State Administrators Reported Improvement in Veterans' Services and 
Employment Outcomes: 

According to VETS data we examined, 46 states have met their negotiated 
goals for veterans' employment outcomes under the DVOP program and 42 
states have met similar goals under the LVER program. While it is too 
early to determine whether or how JVA's reforms are responsible, most 
state workforce administrators we surveyed believed that the reforms 
have improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled 
veterans, and have improved their employment outcomes. They credited 
the greater availability of case management services under JVA for much 
of the improvement in employment. State administrators reported, on the 
other hand, that federal contractor failure to list job openings at the 
local one-stop centers was most likely to delay or prevent some 
employment. Aside from the new law, administrators considered some non- 
JVA factors as significant for veterans' employment success, including 
the willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the 
local job market. 

In their responses to our survey, many state workforce administrators 
associated JVA reforms with improvements. Overall, 33 of the 50 state 
workforce administrators reported that veterans' employment services 
have improved in their respective states since enactment of the law. 
They most often reported that DVOPs were spending more time on case 
management since JVA, although somewhat fewer states reported that 
services to disabled veterans had similarly improved. (See fig. 7.) 

Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Regarding actual employment results, 33 state workforce administrators 
also reported improvement. These respondents attributed the improvement 
both to the law's reforms and to other factors. The reform cited most 
often as helping veterans obtain employment was the increased 
availability of case management or other intensive services through the 
DVOP program (39 states). (See fig. 8.) The reform least cited was the 
requirement to give priority to veterans in referrals to federal 
contractor jobs. Only 22 state administrators said it had improved 
outcomes. Beyond the reforms themselves, administrators said veterans' 
employment was influenced by employer willingness or desire to hire 
veterans and by the strength of the local job market. They reported 
that employment was also influenced by the transferability of veterans' 
existing skills to other jobs. 

Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

State workforce administrators also reported what they viewed as 
obstacles to employing veterans. Specifically, lack of federal 
contractor listing of job openings, as required under law, was most 
likely to delay or prevent employment. (See fig. 9.) Other obstacles, 
such as veterans not receiving priority of referral for federal 
contractor jobs and waiting lists for training programs, were cited 
less than half as often. Non-JVA factors also presented obstacles to 
employment, the most frequent one being a poor local job market. This 
factor was cited nearly more than twice as often as other factors, such 
as non-transferability of veterans' skills to available jobs or 
employer reluctance to hire veterans with National Guard or Reserve 
commitments. 

Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining 
Employment: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Absence of Local Level Data and Lack of Coordinated Oversight Weaken 
Program Accountability: 

While VETS directors in 26 states reported that their monitoring role 
had strengthened local performance accountability, the remainder 
reported no effect or a negative effect. In our survey, 21 state VETS 
directors reported that key veterans employment data are not collected 
at the local level or available through other means. Performance 
accountability is also weakened by the lack of coordinated oversight 
among Labor agencies responsible for implementing JVA reforms and by 
the absence of a strategy for using monitoring results to improve 
program performance and help states that lag behind. 

Unavailability of Performance Data at Many Local Offices Weakens 
Accountability: 

Under JVA, states took on greater responsibility for assessing their 
own performance, and while VETS modified its monitoring practices in 
response, the unavailability of local level performance data in many 
states has limited federal oversight and weakened local level 
accountability. Prior to JVA, the law required VETS directors to 
annually review every local employment service office or one-stop 
center where DVOP or LVER staff were located. Since JVA's enactment, 
however, VETS directors review states' own assessments of performance 
and are required to visit each local office once every 5 years. VETS 
completed its first round of monitoring in 2004 using four primary 
review tools: 

* State JVA plans for compliance with program requirements; 

* Annual state self-assessments to ensure the approved state plan is 
being effectively implemented, determine the state's progress toward 
meeting its performance goals, identify technical assistance and 
training needs, and identify best practices; 

* State quarterly performance and management reports on veterans' 
services and employment outcomes; and: 

* Annual site visits to 20 percent of local offices within each state 
to validate information in self-assessments. 

State VETS directors responding to our survey most often reported that 
their monitoring role under JVA has had a positive effect on local 
accountability. (See fig. 10.) Specifically, 27 state directors 
reported their monitoring role had a positive effect on local 
accountability. However, 19 directors reported their monitoring role 
either had no effect or a negative effect on local accountability. 

Figure 10: Extent That VETS' New Monitoring Role Strengthened 
Performance Accountability at the Local Level: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Some monitoring approaches were regarded as more effective than others. 
The most beneficial were analysis and use of data captured in states' 
performance reports, along with on-site reviews of local offices. (See 
fig. 11.) For example, more than half of 51 state VETS directors said 
that analyzing the performance reports had improved accountability. 
Cited by only 15 directors, state self-assessments were considered the 
least beneficial tool. Respondents from the remaining states reported 
that their monitoring activities had little to no effect--or had a 
negative effect--on performance accountability. 

Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS' Monitoring Tools Strengthened 
Performance Accountability: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Despite the reported benefits of analyzing performance data reports and 
visiting local offices, however, data were not always available to help 
monitor local offices, limiting federal oversight and weakening local 
level accountability. For example, VETS directors in 21 states noted 
that VETS 200 performance data were not available at the local level. 
In these states, federal oversight of local office performance may be 
limited to the on-site monitoring visits required once every 5 years. 

Lack of Coordinated Oversight among Labor Agencies also Weakens 
Accountability: 

Labor's several agencies responsible for carrying out JVA reforms have 
not coordinated their monitoring activities to ensure consistent and 
timely oversight, or used information collected through their 
monitoring to help states in greatest need of assistance. For example, 
the five Labor agencies[Footnote 16] operating the 23 training programs 
required to provide service priority to veterans did not work together 
to determine what type of oversight would be needed to ensure that 
grantees comply with the law. Nor have they established common 
reporting requirements.[Footnote 17] 

Similarly, the two Labor agencies responsible for implementing federal 
contractor requirements have not coordinated their monitoring efforts, 
despite VETS' limited enforcement authority. VETS collects reports from 
federal contractors on their veteran hiring and employment practices, 
but VETS officials told us that only the Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has enforcement authority. Thus, if a 
contractor fails to submit an annual report, VETS cannot take action 
against the contractor and must rely on OFCCP to address the issue 
during its compliance review. VETS directors in two states we visited 
said that coordination between the two agencies was lacking and they 
had seen little evidence of monitoring and enforcement by the 
compliance office. 

Similarly, the lack of coordination between VETS and ETA has weakened 
oversight of the DVOP and LVER programs. While VETS is responsible for 
monitoring both programs, ETA oversees other workforce programs that 
serve veterans and nonveterans, such as WIA and Wagner-Peyser 
Employment Services. However, the two agencies do not generally 
coordinate their monitoring activities or share the results. State VETS 
directors responding to our survey said that some coordination occurs 
between VETS and ETA when they review state plans for compliance with 
JVA and WIA, but it is less likely to occur during other types of 
monitoring activities. Although about half of state VETS directors 
reported that they coordinated with ETA on reviewing state plans, only 
five said that they met with them to share the results and take joint 
action. (See fig. 12.) 

Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities between 
VETS and ETA: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Finally, VETS lacks a strategy for using the information it gathers in 
monitoring programs to improve performance across states and local 
areas, according to officials. While Labor has authority under JVA to 
provide technical assistance to states that are deficient in 
performance or need help, VETS has yet to begin addressing the 
significant variation in performance levels among states, as reflected 
by their widely divergent goals negotiated with VETS. For example, in 
program years 2004 and 2005, states' negotiated goals for the rate at 
which veterans entered employment, ranging from 38 to 65 percent, 
depending on past performance, while Labor's national employment goal 
for veterans was 58 percent.[Footnote 18] Although more than half of 
the state goals were short of Labor's target, nationally, VETS has not 
been proactive in determining why certain states are falling behind and 
in targeting them for assistance. Decisions on how to support states 
remain with the individual state VETS directors who must work without 
the overview and insight of national information. 

Conclusions: 

The employment reforms under JVA represent a significant shift for 
veterans' employment and training services, not only because they 
changed how services are provided through DVOP and LVER staff, but also 
because they provided more latitude to states in implementing the law, 
allowing them to tailor service delivery to best meet the needs of 
their veteran job seekers. Our work suggests Labor and states are 
making steady progress in implementing most JVA provisions. However, 
the transition of DVOP and LVER roles and responsibilities, along with 
establishing and monitoring a new performance accountability system, 
may take years to achieve and fine-tune. For those states with an 
incentive award program, the wide variation in methodology for awarding 
incentives suggests that states could benefit from strategies on how 
best to implement their programs. Similarly, strategies are needed to 
address the long-standing challenge states have faced in integrating 
veterans into their service delivery system. Without clear guidance, 
veterans' service providers may work in isolation from other providers, 
hindering staff from leveraging the full array of resources available 
to assist veteran job seekers. In addition, if waiting lists for Labor 
training programs become more prevalent, clear guidance and reporting 
of how well programs are providing priority of service to veterans will 
become especially important. VETS questions the effectiveness of 
federal contractor reporting requirements and Labor has not yet issued 
updated regulations; yet states cite lack of contractor job listings as 
the most likely factor to limit employment opportunities for veterans. 
In the absence of Labor actions to improve the ability of states and 
local areas to identify contractors who are subject to the requirement 
and enforce compliance, additional employment opportunities for 
veterans may be missed. 

The flexibility states and localities have to implement JVA allows them 
to try innovative ways to best meet the needs of veterans in their 
area. By the same token, greater flexibility underscores the need for 
greater accountability to ensure that programs are on the right track 
in serving clients. Such accountability can be facilitated by robust 
monitoring and information systems at the state and local levels that 
can highlight areas in which states and localities are lagging behind. 
Accountability can be hindered, however, by failure to tailor the type 
and intensity of monitoring to the relative strength or weakness of 
local offices and states, as well as differences in the availability of 
local level information. Similarly, in the absence of a coordinated 
approach to guiding and monitoring veterans' services among Labor 
agencies, programs may not be consistently implementing JVA's reforms 
or be held accountable for doing so. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure that Labor workforce programs are serving veterans as 
required by JVA, we recommend that Labor agencies collaborate to: 

* Provide states and local areas with clear guidance and assistance for 
providing priority of service for all veterans and integrating 
veterans' staff into the one-stops or other workforce centers. 

* Disseminate best-practice information to states on methodologies to 
award meaningful performance incentives. 

* Monitor the extent to which all Labor workforce programs are 
providing priority of service to veterans. 

* Strategically use monitoring results to target guidance and technical 
assistance to states and local areas most in need of improved 
performance. 

To achieve results from JVA's provisions regarding veteran hiring 
practices of federal contractors, Labor should issue regulations as 
soon as possible and explore effective methods of enforcement. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its 
review and comment. Labor's comments are reproduced in appendix VI. In 
its comments, Labor concurred with our findings and recommendations and 
noted that its two agencies with primary responsibility for employment 
assistance to veterans, VETS and ETA will be working together to better 
coordinate their efforts to assist veterans. Specifically, Labor 
concurred that additional actions are needed to better integrate 
veterans' staff into one-stop centers, share best practices for 
awarding performance incentives, monitor priority of service for 
veterans, and use monitoring results to improve program performance. In 
addition, Labor said it would expedite issuing federal contractor 
regulations and explore effective methods of regulation enforcement. 
Further, while Labor generally concurred with our recommendation to 
provide clear guidance and assistance for providing priority of service 
for veterans, Labor stated that it believes priority of service has 
been implemented more fully than the report indicates, citing 
publication of guidance for 15 programs on its Web site and the launch 
of an initiative designed to raise awareness among veterans and one- 
stop center professionals. Our report discusses the extent of Labor's 
actions in issuing guidance, but our assessment, as well as opinions 
from some state and local officials, is that Labor guidance on priority 
of service for its 23 workforce training programs has been uneven and 
sometimes insufficient. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant 
congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will be 
made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

Signed by: 

Sigurd R. Nilsen: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the implementation 
status of the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is 
known about services and outcomes since the law's enactment, and (3) 
how accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach and 
Local Veterans' Employment Representative programs. 

To address each of these objectives, we: 

* conducted two Web-based surveys, the first one surveying all 50 
states and the District of Columbia workforce administrators and the 
second surveying the Department of Labor's Directors of Veterans' 
Employment and Training Services (VETS) in the 50 states and the 
District of Columbia; 

* conducted site visits to state workforce agencies and local 
employment offices and one-stop centers, as well as state Directors of 
VETS offices in five states; and: 

* interviewed representatives of national organizations with expertise 
in the issues of veterans' employment, including staff of the 
President's National Hire Veterans Committee. 

More detailed information on each of these aspects is presented below. 
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards between January and November 2005. 

Survey Development and Implementation: 

Our survey of state workforce administrators as well as our survey of 
Directors of VETS addressed all three objectives and included questions 
about implementation of the Jobs for Veterans Act, its impact on 
services and outcomes, performance accountability, and monitoring. 

The surveys were developed based on knowledge obtained during our 
preliminary research. This included a review of pertinent literature 
and interviews with members and representatives of organizations that 
conduct research on and perform policy analysis of veterans' employment 
issues and programs. We also conducted a site visit to the state 
workforce agency and the VETS office in the state of Washington to 
obtain an understanding of veterans' employment programs and how the 
state uses them to increase employment among veterans. The surveys were 
pretested with cognizant state veterans' employment officials and state 
Directors of VETS in Washington, Colorado, and North Carolina to 
determine whether respondents would understand the questions the way 
they were intended. Revisions were made to the surveys based on 
comments received during the pretests. 

We sent notifications of the Web-based survey in July 2005 and followed 
up with additional e-mail messages and telephone calls as necessary 
during August and September. In October, we closed data collection for 
both surveys. At that time, all Directors of VETS had responded to 
their survey and 50 of the 51 state workforce administrators had done 
so. (The District of Columbia did not complete the survey.) We did not 
independently verify information obtained through the survey. 

Because we surveyed state workforce administrators and VETS directors 
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, no sampling error is 
associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into 
any data collection effort and involves a range of issues that could 
affect data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the 
results. We took several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For 
example, GAO survey methodologists and staff with subject matter 
expertise collaboratively designed both Web-based survey instruments. 
Each of the surveys was pretested in three states to ensure that the 
Web-based surveys were relevant, clear, complete, and easy to 
comprehend. To the extent possible, we compared the responses we 
received on the surveys with our site visit observations. 

Data from the two Web-based surveys were converted into separate 
databases and analysis was performed. Finally, a second, independent 
analyst checked all computer analyses. 

Site Visits to State Workforce Agencies and Directors of VETS: 

To obtain a detailed understanding of the impact of the Jobs for 
Veterans Act on states and the activities of the Directors of VETS, we 
conducted visits to five states. We visited the state of Washington in 
the preliminary phase of our work and four other states--California, 
Florida, Louisiana, and Ohio--in a later phase. We selected these 
states on the basis of several criteria including geographic 
dispersion, range of sizes as determined by funding allocation, whether 
the state had implemented JVA's incentive award program, and 
recommendations by Labor, veterans' service organizations, and the 
National Association of State Workforce Agencies. On the basis of these 
organizations' recommendations, we then chose two local one-stop 
centers that were either far along in implementation or were facing 
some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included interviews 
with officials from the state workforce agency and VETS; at the local 
level, we interviewed one-stop management and staff, including 
veterans' staff. 

During each of these interviews, we used a standard interview protocol 
that enabled us to obtain more detailed--yet comparable--information 
than states were able to provide in the survey. In our interviews with 
the state workforce agency, we discussed the status of implementation 
of the Jobs for Veterans Act, the incentive awards program, monitoring 
of local employment offices and one-stops for priority of service and 
the use of part-time DVOP and LVER staff. At the local offices, we 
discussed the implementation of the act, its impact on veterans' 
employment, specific benefits the act achieved, and obstacles to the 
complete implementation of the act's provisions. Finally, we 
interviewed Directors of VETS and their staff, discussing the changes 
in monitoring one-stops and local employment offices, the 
accountability of local offices and one-stops, and coordination between 
VETS and ETA. Our site visit work was conducted between April and 
August 2005. 

Other Work: 

As part of our work, we reviewed pertinent literature and interviewed 
representatives of the following organizations: 

* National Veterans' Training Institute in Denver, Colorado; 

* Veterans' staff from 24 states attending the training institute; 

* President's National Hire Veterans Committee; 

* National Association of State Workforce Agencies; 

* The following Labor agencies: VETS, ETA, Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs, Women's Bureau, Office of Disability Employment 
Policy, and Bureau of International Labor Affairs; and: 

* The following veterans' service organizations: Disabled American 
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
the United States, and Vietnam Veterans of America. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 
2003 and 2005: 

States receiving 5 percent or more increase in funding from 2003 to 
2005: 

State: Arizona; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,767,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,929,000; 
Percentage change: 66. 

State: Delaware; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $382,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: 16. 

State: Florida; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,439,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $8,507,000; 
Percentage change: 14. 

State: Georgia; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,219,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,336,000; 
Percentage change: 35. 

State: Kansas; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,394,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,523,000; 
Percentage change: 9. 

State: Kentucky; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,587,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,281,000; 
Percentage change: 44. 

State: Louisiana; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,564,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,319,000; 
Percentage change: 48. 

State: Mississippi; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,222,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,476,000; 
Percentage change: 21. 

State: Nevada; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,239,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,299,000; 
Percentage change: 5. 

State: New Jersey; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,275,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,927,000; 
Percentage change: 20. 

State: North Carolina; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,984,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,722,000; 
Percentage change: 19. 

State: South Carolina; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,854,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,467,000; 
Percentage change: 33. 

State: Tennessee; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,313,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,206,000; 
Percentage change: 39. 

State: Texas; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $9,393,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $11,602,000; 
Percentage change: 24. 

State: Utah; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $881,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,042,000; 
Percentage change: 18. 

State: Virginia; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,368,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,861,000; 
Percentage change: 15. 

States receiving about the same amount of funding in 2003 and 2005: 

State: California; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $18,114,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $17,749,000; 
Percentage change: -2. 

State: Colorado; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,520,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,625,000; 
Percentage change: 4. 

State: Indiana; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,074,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,130,000; 
Percentage change: 2. 

State: Washington; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $4,052,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,154,000; 
Percentage change: 3. 

States receiving 5 percent or more decrease in funding from 2003 to 
2005: 

State: Alabama; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,438,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,316,000; 
Percentage change: -5. 

State: Alaska; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $687,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $520,000; 
Percentage change: -24. 

State: Arkansas; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,695,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,430,000; 
Percentage change: -16. 

State: Connecticut; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,963,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,904,000; 
Percentage change: -36. 

State: District of Columbia; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $475,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: -7. 

State: Hawaii; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $755,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $598,000; 
Percentage change: -21. 

State: Idaho; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $936,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $779,000; 
Percentage change: -17. 

State: Illinois; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,957,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,536,000; 
Percentage change: -18. 

State: Iowa; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,333,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,497,000; 
Percentage change: -36. 

State: Maine; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,040,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $763,000; 
Percentage change: -27. 

State: Maryland; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,125,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,887,000; 
Percentage change: -8. 

State: Massachusetts; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,345,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,092,000; 
Percentage change: -8. 

State: Michigan; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $6,634,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $5,439,000; 
Percentage change: -18. 

State: Minnesota; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,414,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,698,000; 
Percentage change: -21. 

State: Missouri; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,641,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,342,000; 
Percentage change: -8. 

State: Montana; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $815,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $536,000; 
Percentage change: -34. 

State: Nebraska; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $964,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $887,000; 
Percentage change: -8. 

State: New Hampshire; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $815,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $729,000; 
Percentage change: -11. 

State: New Mexico; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,107,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $990,000; 
Percentage change: -11. 

State: New York; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $10,561,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $8,355,000; 
Percentage change: -21. 

State: North Dakota; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $606,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: -27. 

State: Ohio; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $8,436,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,308,000; 
Percentage change: -25. 

State: Oklahoma; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,325,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,862,000; 
Percentage change: -20. 

State: Oregon; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,503,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,363,000; 
Percentage change: -6. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,662,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,472,000; 
Percentage change: -16. 

State: Rhode Island; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $642,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $534,000; 
Percentage change: -17. 

State: South Dakota; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $527,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: -16. 

State: Vermont; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $623,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: -29. 

State: West Virginia; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,018,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $931,000; 
Percentage change: -9. 

State: Wisconsin; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,221,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,063,000; 
Percentage change: -5. 

State: Wyoming; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $494,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000; 
Percentage change: -10. 

Total; 
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $156,398,000; 
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $152,650,000. 

Source: Labor's VETS. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: State Incentive Award Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal 
Year 2004: 

State: Alabama; 
Allocation: $23,780; 
Expended: $18,590; 
Unexpended: $5,190. 

State: Alaska; 
Allocation: $5,500; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $5,500. 

State: Arizona; 
Allocation: $29,000; 
Expended: $29,000; 
Unexpended: $0. 

State: Arkansas; 
Allocation: $13,970; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $13,970. 

State: California; 
Allocation: $179,240; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $179,240. 

State: Colorado; 
Allocation: $24,230; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $24,230. 

State: Connecticut; 
Allocation: $23,700; 
Expended: $14,200; 
Unexpended: $9,500. 

State: Delaware; 
Allocation: $4,465; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $4,465. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Allocation: $4,400; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $4,400. 

State: Florida; 
Allocation: $83,010; 
Expended: $81,284; 
Unexpended: $1,726. 

State: Georgia; 
Allocation: $36,050; 
Expended: $36,050; 
Unexpended: $0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Allocation: $6,200; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $6,200. 

State: Idaho; 
Allocation: $8,070; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $8,070. 

State: Illinois; 
Allocation: $65,150; 
Expended: $59,498; 
Unexpended: $5,652. 

State: Indiana; 
Allocation: $35,109; 
Expended: $35,109; 
Unexpended: $0. 

State: Iowa; 
Allocation: $18,660; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $18,660. 

State: Kansas; 
Allocation: $15,410; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $15,410. 

State: Kentucky; 
Allocation: $22,560; 
Expended: $14,571; 
Unexpended: $7,989. 

State: Louisiana; 
Allocation: $24,760; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $24,760. 

State: Maine; 
Allocation: $8,320; 
Expended: $8,316; 
Unexpended: $4. 

State: Maryland; 
Allocation: $29,727; 
Expended: $10,000; 
Unexpended: $19,727. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Allocation: $28,770; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $28,770. 

State: Michigan; 
Allocation: $53,070; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $53,070. 

State: Minnesota; 
Allocation: $27,310; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $27,310. 

State: Mississippi; 
Allocation: $15,250; 
Expended: $15,925; 
Unexpended: $- 675. 

State: Missouri; 
Allocation: $31,580; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $31,580. 

State: Montana; 
Allocation: $6,520; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $6,520. 

State: Nebraska; 
Allocation: $8,840; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $8,840. 

State: Nevada; 
Allocation: $12,590; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $12,590. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Allocation: $7,140; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $7,140. 

State: New Jersey; 
Allocation: $38,200; 
Expended: $27,053; 
Unexpended: $11,147. 

State: New Mexico; 
Allocation: $9,832; 
Expended: $9,832; 
Unexpended: $0. 

State: New York; 
Allocation: $84,490; 
Expended: $3,704; 
Unexpended: $80,786. 

State: North Carolina; 
Allocation: $47,610; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $47,610. 

State: North Dakota; 
Allocation: $4,850; 
Expended: $4,493; 
Unexpended: $357. 

State: Ohio; 
Allocation: $67,490; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $67,490. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Allocation: $18,600; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $18,600. 

State: Oregon; 
Allocation: $22,550; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $22,550. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Allocation: $66,100; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $66,100. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Allocation: $5,320; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $5,320. 

State: South Carolina; 
Allocation: $24,430; 
Expended: $24,180; 
Unexpended: $250. 

State: South Dakota; 
Allocation: $4,390; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $4,390. 

State: Tennessee; 
Allocation: $31,670; 
Expended: $32,740; 
Unexpended: $- 1,070. 

State: Texas; 
Allocation: $110,580; 
Expended: $95,468; 
Unexpended: $15,112. 

State: Vermont; 
Allocation: $5,030; 
Expended: $2,700; 
Unexpended: $2,330. 

State: Virginia; 
Allocation: $38,150; 
Expended: $33,392; 
Unexpended: $4,758. 

State: Washington; 
Allocation: $41,330; 
Expended: $35,244; 
Unexpended: $6,086. 

State: West Virginia; 
Allocation: $9,850; 
Expended: $7,386; 
Unexpended: $2,464. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Allocation: $30,600; 
Expended: $21,287; 
Unexpended: $9,313. 

State: Wyoming; 
Allocation: $4,390; 
Expended: $0; 
Unexpended: $4,390. 

Total; 
Allocation: $1,528,203; 
Expended: $630,097; 
Unexpended: $898,106. 

Source: Labor's VETS. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for Veterans Entering Employment 
through the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 2004 and 2005: 

State: Alabama; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Alaska; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: Arizona; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 58. 

State: Arkansas; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 53. 

State: California; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 51. 

State: Colorado; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: Connecticut; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 55. 

State: Delaware; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 55. 

State: District of Columbia; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 58. 

State: Florida; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 61; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 61. 

State: Georgia; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 65; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 65. 

State: Hawaii; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 45; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 42. 

State: Idaho; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: Illinois; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 45; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 46. 

State: Indiana; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 54. 

State: Iowa; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 57; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

State: Kansas; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Kentucky; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Louisiana; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: Maine; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 58. 

State: Maryland; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Massachusetts; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Michigan; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 48. 

State: Minnesota; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 52. 

State: Mississippi; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: Missouri; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 48; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 49. 

State: Montana; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Nebraska; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 64; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 62. 

State: Nevada; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: New Hampshire; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 64; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 65. 

State: New Jersey; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 54; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

State: New Mexico; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: New York; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

State: North Carolina; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: North Dakota; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 59; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 63. 

State: Ohio; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: Oklahoma; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 60. 

State: Oregon; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 47; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 54. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 54; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: Rhode Island; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: South Carolina; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 59; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 59. 

State: South Dakota; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 64. 

State: Tennessee; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 38; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 38. 

State: Texas; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

State: Utah; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

State: Vermont; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: Virginia; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 56. 

State: Washington; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 54. 

State: West Virginia; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 52; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 51. 

State: Wisconsin; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 58. 

State: Wyoming; 
DVOP performance goal (percent): 48; 
LVER performance goal (percent): 57. 

Source: Labor's VETS. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: States' Use of Full-Time and Part-Time Veterans' Staff: 

Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff: 

State: Alabama; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 16; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Alaska; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 6; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Arizona; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 35; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Arkansas; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 9; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 9. 

State: California; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 123; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 10; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Colorado; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 20; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 4. 

State: Connecticut; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 8; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Delaware; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 5; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Florida; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 66; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 10; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Georgia; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 50; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Idaho; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Illinois; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 38; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 10. 

State: Indiana; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 26; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Iowa; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 15; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 15. 

State: Kansas; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 12; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 11; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Kentucky; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 10; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 3; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Louisiana; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 14; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Maine; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 6; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 6. 

State: Maryland; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 25; 
Part-time DVOP staff: [A]; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 20; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 4. 

State: Michigan; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 31; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 15. 

State: Minnesota; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 21; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Mississippi; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 19; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 12; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 11. 

State: Missouri; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 19; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 13; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Montana; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 7; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 3; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 5. 

State: Nebraska; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 5; 
Part-time DVOP staff: [A]; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Nevada; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 5; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 5; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: New Jersey; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 33; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: New Mexico; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 9; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: New York; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 55; 
Part-time DVOP staff: [A]; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: North Carolina; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 22; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: North Dakota; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: Ohio; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 58; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 38. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 18; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Oregon; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 18; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 37; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 7; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: [A]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: South Carolina; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 15; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 8; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: South Dakota; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 4; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 9; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: Tennessee; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 32; 
Part-time DVOP staff: [A]; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: Texas; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 86; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 12; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Utah; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 9; 
Part-time DVOP staff: [A]; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Vermont; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 2; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: Virginia; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 35; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Washington; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 36; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: West Virginia; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 6; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: [A]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 23; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 0; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 10. 

State: Wyoming; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 1; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 8; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 5. 

Total; 
Full-time DVOP staff: 1,124; 
Part-time DVOP staff: 132; 
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 153. 

Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training 
Services. 

[A] Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the 
question. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff: 

State: Alabama; 
Full-time LVER staff: 16; 
Part-time LVER staff: 2; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Alaska; 
Full-time LVER staff: 2; 
Part-time LVER staff: 4; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Arizona; 
Full-time LVER staff: 14; 
Part-time LVER staff: 9; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: Arkansas; 
Full-time LVER staff: 10; 
Part-time LVER staff: 6; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 14. 

State: California; 
Full-time LVER staff: 72; 
Part-time LVER staff: 19; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Colorado; 
Full-time LVER staff: 14; 
Part-time LVER staff: 4; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: [A]. 

State: Connecticut; 
Full-time LVER staff: 8; 
Part-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Delaware; 
Full-time LVER staff: 3; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Full-time LVER staff: 2; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Florida; 
Full-time LVER staff: 56; 
Part-time LVER staff: 9; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 4. 

State: Georgia; 
Full-time LVER staff: 25; 
Part-time LVER staff: 30; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Full-time LVER staff: 6; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Idaho; 
Full-time LVER staff: 8; 
Part-time LVER staff: 5; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Illinois; 
Full-time LVER staff: 31; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 20. 

State: Indiana; 
Full-time LVER staff: 32; 
Part-time LVER staff: 1; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Iowa; 
Full-time LVER staff: 3; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Kansas; 
Full-time LVER staff: 10; 
Part-time LVER staff: 2; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Kentucky; 
Full-time LVER staff: 15; 
Part-time LVER staff: 12; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Louisiana; 
Full-time LVER staff: 16; 
Part-time LVER staff: 3; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: Maine; 
Full-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Part-time LVER staff: 8; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Maryland; 
Full-time LVER staff: 17; 
Part-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Full-time LVER staff: 19; 
Part-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Michigan; 
Full-time LVER staff: 29; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 11. 

State: Minnesota; 
Full-time LVER staff: 14; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 14. 

State: Mississippi; 
Full-time LVER staff: 0; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 18. 

State: Missouri; 
Full-time LVER staff: 26; 
Part-time LVER staff: 13; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Montana; 
Full-time LVER staff: 1; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Nebraska; 
Full-time LVER staff: 3; 
Part-time LVER staff: 15; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Nevada; 
Full-time LVER staff: 6; 
Part-time LVER staff: 1; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Full-time LVER staff: 6; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: New Jersey; 
Full-time LVER staff: 13; 
Part-time LVER staff: 8; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: New Mexico; 
Full-time LVER staff: 10; 
Part-time LVER staff: 8; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 9. 

State: New York; 
Full-time LVER staff: 50; 
Part-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: North Carolina; 
Full-time LVER staff: 43; 
Part-time LVER staff: 35; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: North Dakota; 
Full-time LVER staff: 5; 
Part-time LVER staff: 3; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 5. 

State: Ohio; 
Full-time LVER staff: 11; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 6. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Full-time LVER staff: 16; 
Part-time LVER staff: 18; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Oregon; 
Full-time LVER staff: 14; 
Part-time LVER staff: 9; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Full-time LVER staff: 33; 
Part-time LVER staff: 22; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: [A]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Full-time LVER staff: 3; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 1. 

State: South Carolina; 
Full-time LVER staff: 17; 
Part-time LVER staff: 15; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: South Dakota; 
Full-time LVER staff: 1; 
Part-time LVER staff: 1; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

State: Tennessee; 
Full-time LVER staff: 30; 
Part-time LVER staff: 7; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Texas; 
Full-time LVER staff: 91; 
Part-time LVER staff: 18; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Utah; 
Full-time LVER staff: 6; 
Part-time LVER staff: 7; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 7. 

State: Vermont; 
Full-time LVER staff: 2; 
Part-time LVER staff: 3; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Virginia; 
Full-time LVER staff: 27; 
Part-time LVER staff: 8; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 0. 

State: Washington; 
Full-time LVER staff: 24; 
Part-time LVER staff: 0; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: West Virginia; 
Full-time LVER staff: 6; 
Part-time LVER staff: 4; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: [A]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Full-time LVER staff: 18; 
Part-time LVER staff: [A]; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 3. 

State: Wyoming; 
Full-time LVER staff: 1; 
Part-time LVER staff: 1; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 2. 

Total; 
Full-time LVER staff: 885; 
Part-time LVER staff: 310; 
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in 
the state: 138. 

Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training 
Services. 

[A] Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the 
question. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Veteran's Employment and Training: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

DEC 20 2005: 

Sigurd R. Nilsen: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Nilsen: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report "Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve 
Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans' 
Employment Services" (GAO-06-176). The Department of Labor (DOL) 
generally concurs with the findings of this report and is pleased that 
the report indicates that DOL is on track in implementing the 
provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) and also indicates that 
JVA is reported to have had positive impact on veterans' services and 
employment outcomes. 

Our agencies, the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and 
the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), have primary 
responsibility for implementing JVA within the U.S. Department of 
Labor. The key provisions of JVA applicable to our agencies have 
complementary implications that require ongoing close coordination. For 
those reasons, we are jointly sharing responsibility for these 
comments, which are generally structured within the framework of the 
five Recommendations for Executive Action. Because GAO's first 
recommendation addresses two areas of application, we have treated 
those two areas separately in our response. 

Provide States and Local Areas with Clear Guidance and Assistance 
Regarding the Integration of Veterans' Staff into One-Stop Career 
Centers: DOL concurs with thus recommendation. As a structural aspect 
of the workforce system, it is essential that Disabled Veterans' 
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans' Employment 
Representative (LVER) staff be fully integrated into One-Stop Career 
Centers so that they can assist veterans to access the full range of 
workforce services. To improve this important aspect of service 
integration, VETS and ETA have undertaken two collaborative initiatives 
and have planned a third. ETA, in partnership with VETS and the 
Department of Defense, recently launched the "Key to Career Success" 
initiative to provide clear guidance to One-Stop Career Center staff 
regarding veterans' issues and priority of service requirements. VETS 
launched the REALifelines initiative in October 2004 to mobilize One- 
Stop resources to deliver personalized career development services to 
veterans and transitioning service members severely injured in the 
Global War on Terrorism. To support that initiative, VETS collaborated 
with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (ASP) to develop 
a web-based REALifelines Advisor to provide job training information 
and services through the VETS State Directors and the One-Stop Career 
Centers. In addition, VETS plans to initiate a sponsored study during 
this fiscal year to examine the impacts on veterans' services and 
outcomes of JVA and other structural realignments underway within the 
workforce system. A key objective of that study will be to identify 
specific areas in which clear guidance and assistance are required to 
improve the integration of DVOP specialists and LVER staff into One-
Stop operations. 

Provide States and Local Areas with Clear Guidance and Assistance 
Regarding the Provision of Priority of Service DOL generally concurs 
with this recommendation. In addition to ETA and VETS, priority of 
service also applies to three other DOL agencies identified in the 
report (Women's Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and 
Bureau of International Labor Affairs). However, ETA bears the primary 
responsibility for providing policy guidance to grantees regarding 
implementation of the priority of service provisions, due to the number 
and size of the programs ETA oversees. While many of the programs 
impacted by priority of service might benefit from additional 
clarifications or from the provision of technical assistance, DOL 
believes that the priority of service provision has been implemented 
more completely than the report indicates. ETA published policy 
guidance and launched a dedicated web site that includes questions and 
answers specifying distinct criteria for applying priority of service 
to 15 programs. That guidance is consistent with our interpretation of 
the priority provision to mean that veterans are eligible for priority 
of selection to participate in a specific program after they have met 
all the other statutory eligibility requirements for that program. 
Because of the interaction between priority of service and the specific 
requirements of the impacted programs, the application of priority of 
service will necessarily take different forms, particularly where 
another statutory priority must be applied in conjunction with priority 
o^ service. In addition to policy guidance, as mentioned above, ETA and 
VETS launched the Keys to Career Success initiative designed to raise 
awareness of veterans and One-Stop system professionals regarding the 
need to provide priority of service to veterans. 

Disseminate Best Practices for Incentive Award Programs: DOL concurs 
with the recommendation that the best practices developed for incentive 
award programs should be shared among the States. This is appropriate 
due to the States' relative inexperience with this type of program and 
to the diverse approaches that they have followed to date. 
Implementation of this recommendation should improve the State 
incentive award programs. However, absent an amendment to provide 
increased flexibility, it is unlikely that all States will be able to 
make use of incentive funds for cash awards to individual employees. 
DOL believes that there are alternatives to the current program, such 
as a national awards program. 

Monitor the Extent That All Labor Workforce Programs Are Providing 
Priority of Service: DOL concurs with this recommendation. DOL is 
responsible for evaluating whether covered persons are receiving 
priority of service and has worked to ensure that current monitoring 
protocols include monitoring for priority of service. DOL agrees that 
additional guidance to Federal Project Officers; would be valuable, as 
would the implementation of alternative evaluation methods, including 
improved data collection. 

Target Monitoring Results for Program Improvement: DOL concurs with 
this recommendation. In the past year, ETA and VETS have taken a 
significant step to improve coordination of monitoring activities. For 
some time, ETA has designated regional accountability specialists and 
has maintained information exchange within this network by hosting bi-
weekly conference calls and convening periodic meetings. Recognizing 
the value of this approach, VETS recently designated regional 
accountability specialists which are now part of the same communication 
network. Having regional accountability specialists in both agencies 
working collaboratively provides the foundation for pursuing joint 
planning and conduct of monitoring visits, and joint enforcement of 
corrective actions. To support joint monitoring, VETS intends to revise 
the monitoring guides for Jobs for Veterans grants by focusing on 
quality of service and accountability for performance. 

Achieve Results from JVA's Federal Contractor Hiring Provisions: DOL 
concurs with this recommendation. In response to the findings regarding 
the Federal Contractor Program (FCP), VETS will improve coordination 
with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to 
expedite the issuance of revised regulations for FCP. OFCCP has drafted 
the Jobs for Veterans Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which 
will be published in the near future. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Charles S. Ciccolella: 
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training: 

Emily Stover DeRocco: 
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual mentioned above, Lacinda Ayers, Assistant 
Director; R. Jerry Aiken; Susan Bernstein; Jessica Botsford; Meeta 
Engle; Stuart Kaufman; Robert Miller; Emily Pickrell; Jay Smale; and 
Dianne Whitman-Miner made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 
Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations on 
Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. Washington, 
D.C.: May 12, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and 
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928. 
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance 
Measurement System Improved, but Further Changes Needed. GAO-01-580. 
Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance 
Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. Washington, D.C.: 
July 29, 1999. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal 
Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.: 
September 30, 1998. 

Veterans' Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor 
Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 1997. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and 
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, GAO-01-928 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001). 

[2] The state workforce administrator from the District of Columbia did 
not respond. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 107-288 (2002). 

[4] Prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that there was to be one DVOP for 
each 7,400 veterans in a state and prescribed 11 functions the DVOP 
staff to carry out in providing services to eligible veterans. 
Similarly, prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that in any fiscal year 
funding should be available for 1,600 full-time LVER staff and 
prescribed how those LVER staff were to be allocated to the states and 
assigned to local employment service offices. In addition, Title 38 
prescribed 13 functions to be performed by the LVER staff. 

[5] The other grant programs and services administered by VETS are the 
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, Veterans Workforce Investment 
Program, Transition Assistance Program, and National Veterans' Training 
Institute. 

[6] VETS issued guidance based in part on House bill H.R. 4015, which 
contained provisions that VETS believed would be enacted in the new 
legislation. 

[7] National Veterans' Training Institute is funded as a separate line 
item in the VETS budget, limiting VETS' authority to reprogram funds 
among its accounts to $500,000, according to a VETS official. 

[8] The Transition Assistance Program was established to ease the 
transition of separating service members and their spouses from 
military service to the civilian workforce. During 3-day workshops 
conducted at selected military installations nationwide, participants 
learn about job searches, career decision making, current occupational 
and labor market conditions, résumé writing, and interviewing 
techniques. In fiscal year 2005, VETS allocated $2.5 million to 40 
states for the provision of 3,048 workshops. 

[9] The ratio of the total number of job-seeking veterans residing in 
the state to the total number of job-seeking veterans in all states is 
best determined using data collected through the Local Area 
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS), 
both of which are administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 
The LAUS data are considered to be the most reliable source of the 
number of unemployed persons in the civilian labor force, while the CPS 
data are considered to be the most reliable source of the number of 
veterans in the civilian labor force. BLS officials said that these two 
data sources provide the most meaningful and reliable data on veterans 
seeking employment at the state level, and that using a 3-year average 
to calculate the funding formula will stabilize the effect of annual 
fluctuations in the data and, consequently, in the amounts allocated 
annually to states. 

[10] Under the common measures, Labor plans to require one-stops to 
track all participants who walk through the door of a one-stop center 
and receive any one-stop service, regardless of which program provides 
the service. 

[11] GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess 
Reemployment Services to Claimants, GAO-05-413 (Washington, D.C.: June 
24, 2005). 

[12] The Web site can be found at http://www.hirevetsfirst.gov. 

[13] Labor's guidance defines part-time DVOP and LVER positions as half-
time positions. 

[14] These states were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and 
Rhode Island. While the survey respondent from Montana did not report 
information for this question, the state's fiscal year 2005 plan notes 
that Montana will not implement an incentive program. Collectively, 
these states accounted for about $526,000 (34 percent) of incentive 
award funding in fiscal year 2005. 

[15] The Urban Institute, Strategies for Implementing Priority of 
Service to Veterans in Department of Labor Programs (Washington, D.C.: 
2004). 

[16] The five Labor agencies are Employment and Training 
Administration, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Women's 
Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and Bureau of 
International Labor Affairs. 

[17] Some states have taken action to coordinate monitoring activities 
among programs. Louisiana state workforce officials, for example, 
established a two-person monitoring division that reviews all aspects 
of veterans' services, including whether they are receiving priority, 
regardless of which program serves them. Following the site visit, the 
monitoring unit provides immediate training and technical assistance 
based on its findings. 

[18] Labor's national goal applies to all programs that serve veterans 
and is distinct from the JVA requirement to set a national minimum 
standard for veterans served by the DVOP and LVER programs. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: