[TEXT ONLY]
This document is a summary of a printed document. The printed document may contain charts and photographs which are not reproduced in this electronic version. If you require the printed version of this document, contact the Freedom of Information Act Officer, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or call (202) 693-5116.
This report reflects the findings of the Office of Inspector General at the time that the audit report was issued. More current information may be available as a result of the resolution of this audit by the Department of Labor program agency and the auditee. For further information concerning the resolution of this report's findings, please contact the program agency.
OIG has started using Acrobat 4.0 to prepare it's latest Audit reports. If you are experiencing problems downloading some of the larger PDF files, you may want to download the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader by clicking the link provided below.
Congressman Terry Everett, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, requested OIG to audit allegations made by a Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialist at a Maryland Job Service Office that he was directed by the Job Service Office Manager to perform services for nonveterans in violation of Title 38 U.S. Code, Chapter 41 (Title 38), which restricts DVOP services to only eligible veterans. The DVOP specialist also state alleged that he was subject to reprisal. States administered DVOP through grants provided by DOL Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). The State Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR) administers DVOP in Maryland.(DOL)
Our audit objectives were to determine whether: (1) the allegations of Title 38 violations at the Job Service Office were supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the actions taken by DLLR to address the DVOP specialist's reprisal complaint were adequate; and (3) the controls used by VETS to identify and prevent Title 38 violations were effective.
The results of our audit found that the DVOP specialist provided services to nonveterans in violation of Title 38 at the Job Service Office. While the DVOP specialist alleged that he was directed by the Office Manager to perform services to nonveterans, the DVOP specialist acknowledged that he knew such actions were in violation of Title 38. Additionally, we concluded that although there was no evidence that the Office Manager and Job Service Supervisor directed the DVOP specialist to provide service to nonveterans, there was evidence to show they were aware that it was occurring. The audit also found that DLLR's response to the Title 38 violations was inadequate because no disciplinary action was taken against the employees involved and corrective action has not been implemented to ensure that the violations will not recur. Additionally, the DVOP specialist's reprisal complaint was not formally addressed by DLLR. DLLR took formal action on the compliant after the end of our fieldwork. Finally, the audit found that DLLR's calculation of the amount to be reimbursed to VETS for the costs of providing services to nonveterans was unintentionally understated by $24,000.
The audit also found that the VETS Regional Office needs to be more aggressive in ensuring that Title 38 violations are adequately resolved and changes are needed in VETS' procedures for the Local Employment Service Office (LESO) evaluations to improve its effectiveness to identify Title 38 violations.
We recommended that VETS instruct DLLR to
implement its proposed corrective action plan so that reasonable assurance
can be provided that the Title 38 violations are not occurring at any Job
Service Offices in Maryland. Additionally, we recommended that VETS
recover the $24,000 in understated cost. We also recommended that VETS
develop policies defining the Federal VETS Regional Administrators' and
State Directors' responsibilities in negotiating remedies to State
compliance issues and modify its local office evaluation procedures to
increase assurances that incidents of serving nonveterans are identified.
Report No. 03-00-009-02-201 (September 28, 2000)
