Detailed Information on the
Department of Veterans Affairs- General Administration Assessment

Develop performance based budgets and clearer resource requests.

Develop a process to hold managers accountable for program cost, schedule and performance results.

Measure: Number of audit qualifications identified in the auditor's opinion on VA's Consolidated Financial Statements

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of tort claims decided accurately at the administrative stage. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:This goal promotes VA's increased emphasis towards settling meritorious tort claims administratively in order to compensate deserving veterans and their families for medical error as rapidly as possible. Administrative settlement may often serve to avoid undue stress for the veteran, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary expense to the government.

Measure: The Alternative Dispute Resolution participation rate in the informal stage of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process

Explanation:This measure gauges the overall effectiveness of the EEO compliant process and the Department's strategy to engage in ADR to resolve workplace disputes and help make employees more efficient in providing services to Veterans. The data will allow managers to identify and target improvement efforts and reduce workplace disputes. Results are calculated by taking the number of ADR elections at informal counseling, plus the number of ADR elections at the formal stage divided by the number of informal contacts. Results will be compiled, analyzed, and published by Resource Management Staff at Central Office and presented to Administrations, senior VA executives, field facilities and other users.

Measure: Grade on the Federal Information Security Management Act report

Explanation:This is a measure of how well the agency is doing in the areas of computer and network security. The FISMA Act bolsters computer and network security within the federal government and affiliated parties (i.e., contractors) by mandating yearly audits. The FISMA report submitted by all Agencies, including VA, translates to an official score card that tells the agency how well it is doing in the areas of computer and network security. This metric reports VA's grade in the annual FISMA report. This is a federally mandated requirement.

Measure: Overall EVM portfolio performance as measured by Cost and Schedule Performance Variances

Explanation:This goal will measure the degree to which projects in the VA IT development portfolio are performing effectively in terms of cost and schedule. VA IT project managers use the Primavera EVAM tools and the EVMS to track relevant cost and schedule performance data. Analysts compare monthly EVM findings submitted by IT development project managers against a stored EVM database. Where differences exist data are corrected and/or reconciled.

Measure: Percent Condition Index (Owned Buildings)

Explanation:Constructed assets that are in better condition (i.e., those with a higher condition index) are more efficient and have lower operating and maintenance costs. Thus, cost savings generated by having buildings in better condition allow the VA to direct more funding to veterans care. VA will calculate condition index annually as the ratio of repair needs to plant replacement value. The higher the Condition Index the better the condition of the constructed asset. Condition Index will be used to identify assets most in need of repair and plan for updates or disposition.

Measure: Ratio of operating costs per gross square foot (GSF)

Explanation:By minimizing operating and maintenance costs VA can reinvest much needed funds in improving services to our nation's veterans. This measure gauges progress towards VA's efforts to reduce its inventory of underutilized and non-mission dependent assets through leasing (including enhanced-use leasing) and disposal to other federal agencies, state and local governments, and to private entities. Disposition reduces VA's responsibility for operating and maintaining these assets. VA will calculate annual operating and maintenance costs on all constructed assets using an OMB-approved allocation model. Data will be the Capital Asset Management System (CAMS) based on Administration source databases.

Measure: Percent of design and construction award contracts that are awarded within 90-days of operating plan target dates

Explanation:This measure will determine how accurately contract awards are meeting operating plan target dates. Managers will use this information to determine if contract awards are meeting operating plan target dates and determine if corrective actions need to be taken to get a project back on schedule. The results are calculated by dividing the number of contract awards that meet operating plan target dates within a 90 day variance by the total number of contract awards. Percentages are based on the yearly average. This information will be used by VA managers to determine if contract awards are meeting operating plan target dates.

Measure: Percent of testimony submitted to Congress within the required timeframe.

Explanation:The measure will assist in improving communications timeliness between VA and Congress with regards to testimony VA's office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs provides Departmental coordination for hearing preparation, including the creation and submission of testimony for congressional hearing. To do this an internal tracking system is used to collect the data. OCLA leadership review results data to monitor performance in this important area.

Measure: Cumulative percentage decrease in facility traditional energy consumption per GSF from the 2003 baseline.

Explanation:Increased savings in energy-related costs can be devoted to providing improved veteran services. VA uses the data to monitor and report energy efficiency at facilities. The data help identify good energy performance practices for possible nationwide replication. Management also uses the data to identify where energy efficiency improvements may be needed.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the General Administration account is to provide support for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It includes ten offices: the Office of the Secretary, six Assistant Secretaries, the Board of Contract Appeals, the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and the General Counsel's office. Assistant Secretaries include: Information and Technology, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Policy, Planning, and Preparedness and Human Resources & Administration. The purpose of the program is to deliver world-class service to veterans and their families by applying sound business principles that result in effective management of people, communications, technology, and governance.

Evidence: Volumes 3, which focuses on Departmental Administration and 4, the Summary Volume, of VA's 2005 Budget include mission statements and descriptions of the offices within General Administration. The 2003-2008 Strategic Plan references the overarching goal; each office has specific goals that link to this. The Board of Contract Appeals was established pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C 601?? 603). The Board of Veterans Appeals is codified in 38 U.S.C sections 7101 7111.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The President's Management Agenda could not be carried out without these General Administration offices. Their functions include strategic planning, human resource sucession planning, information technology, and department-wide financial management.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of VA's 2005 Budget outline the need for the existence of these functions.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Within VA there are three adminstrations (Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration). The General Administration offices overlay the other three.

Evidence: Volume 3 of VA's 2005 Budget describes this account.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program's design is free of major flaws. The program supports VA in areas such as human resources, information technology, and budget. The program has improved efficencies by centeralizing several functions as demonstrated by recent reorganizations such as the Office of Management and Office of Information Technology. There is no strong evidence that another approach would be more effective or efficient. The recent move, however, of the Regulatory Affairs office from the General Counsel to the Office of the Secretary does not represent increased effectiveness.

Evidence: The memorandum establishing Office of Business Oversight as well as VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan demonstrate the benefits of reorganization of the Office of Information Technology, Emergency Planning and Prepardeness, and capital assets offices. VA's Budget

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program supports the three VA administrations (Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration) through ten offices, so that they can provide services to veterans. Major weaknesses within the program include the Human Resource management and adminstration of the transitional housing program.

Evidence: Volume 3 of VA's 2005 Budget describes this account and the support functions of these offices. The transitional housing program was created in 1998, and has yet to issue a loan. VA's Human Resources scorecard outlines areas of improvement (see Q3 FY 2003).

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Outcome measures are not practical for all of the offices because of their support function. There are, however, strong long term output measures that meaningfully reflect the program's purposeand show that the program is achieving its intended purposes. An example of a strong long term output measure is the Bureau of Veterans' Appeal percentage of decisions without deficiencies (where the decision, or an aspect of the decision, is inconsistent with the record, the law or a matter of judgment on which reasonable minds would not differ).

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: VA has ambitious targets for the long-term performance measures related to veteran access, program management and information technology. For example, VA's strategic target is to have eight of its nine business lines transformed to achieve a secure veteran-centered benefits delivery process.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: VA has annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals. Examples include the number of audit qualifications identified in the auditor's opinion on VA's Consolidated Financial Statements and the number of appeals decided per Veterans' Law Judge. In addition, VA has several effeciency measures. However, VA could limit the number of performance measures so that it can focus on a smaller number of more critical measures.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: VA has established baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures. For example, the target, "percent of cases using alternate dispute resolution techniques," was recently adjusted to better reflect progress made in this area. The new targets are much more ambitious than previously.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: VA works with its partners, with emphasis on the Administrations (Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration), to accomplish the goals of the program. VA contracts are often performance based and if the terms and conditions are not met, VA withholds payment.

Evidence: Information Technology Business Cases (Exhibit 300's) and VA contracts demonstrate these partnerships and commitment to performance measures.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program has been evaluated in several different ways. An annual audit of VA's Consolidated Financial Statements is completed by an independent, private sector audit firm; these audits have validated the reliability of VA's financial records. In addition, Inspector General and General Accounting Office reviews of the functions of these offices have also taken place.

Evidence: Some examples of evaluations include: Financial Section (Part III) of VA's FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report; Comprehensive Evaluation of VA's Corporate Human Resources Function and Organizational Structure; and General Accounting Office reports on information technology management (January 2004) and Human Capital (January 2004).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: It is impossible to tell from VA's budget request what effect an increase or decrease in funding for general administration will have on achieving targeted goals.

Evidence: VA's 2005 Budget does not tie the budget request to improvements in performance.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: VA created a new, comprehensive governance process in 2001. Within this is a Monthly Performance Review for all administrative functions; interim reviews of the Strategic Plan; and annual review and adjustment of performance measures and targets to ensure alignment with the VA Strategic Plan. The Secretary has held four Leadership Retreats to ensure alignment of priorities. Partnering with the administrations on performance measures remains an area in need of improvement.

Evidence: VA's monthly binders prepared for the Performance Reviews, and call memorandum for the Performance Measures for the FY 2006 Budget demonstrate this progress.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The General Administration offices, as well as other parts of VA present performance information to the Deputy Secretary at Monthly Performance Review meetings where decisions are made that improve the program's management and performance. The Business Oversight Board, chaired by the Secretary, meets quarterly to review all major business policy and operations issues involving procurement, collections, capital asset management, and business revolving funds. VA also uses results of customer satisfaction surveys to improve the program. VA submitted the FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report on the earlier schedule requested by OMB, one of only eight agencies to do so.

Evidence: Monthly Performance Review binders, VA's 2003 Performance and Accountability Report (section I) and Volume 4 of VA's FY 2005 Budget demonstrate how performance information is used in program management.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While accountability for cost, schedule, and performance results, are goals of VA, there have been numerous set backs. Areas of improvement include: Human Resources, implementation of CoreFLS, PeopleSoft / HR Links, transitional housing, and expanding succession planning beyond the Veterans Health Administration. VA's ability to hold program managers accountable after a set-back, such as CoreFLS, is admirable.

Evidence: An Inspector General report on CoreFLS details problems. The transitional housing program was created in 1998, and has yet to issue a loan. VA's Human Resources scorecard outlines areas of improvement (see Q3 FY 2003).

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: General Administration does obligate in a timely manner and spends its funds on its intended purposes. However, in some instances funds were re-allocated among the General Administrative offices and VA did not notify all relevant parties.

Evidence: VA's 2005 Budget compares 2003 actuals, 2004 President's, 2004 current estimate and 2005 request for each of these office.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The offices within General Administration do have procedures in place to track efficiency, but information on cost effectiveness across the offices is lacking. The Board of Veterans Appeals does have a cost efficiency measure on the cost per case, and Information Technology Business Cases include cost efficiency information. In many cases these offices perform procedures such as competitve sourcing for other parts of the department, but they are not applied consistently to these ten offices.

Evidence: There is no consistent mention of cost effectiveness in the VA's 2005 Budget across these offices.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: VA collaborates with other government agencies to implement best practices. Through improvement of the Office of Information Technology, VA is on its way to achieveing its goal of "One VA." VA also collaborate through the use of Service Level Agreements when the services are within the same appropriation, Memorandums of Understanding when the services cross appropriations, and Interagency Agreements when the services cross agencies. An area of improvement could be better coordination between VA's Office of the Actuary and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

Evidence: Interagency Workgroup on Erroneous and Improper Payments Service Level Agreements, Memorandums of Understanding, and Interagency Agreements are in place with both internal and external customers.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Although VA has closed four of its six material weaknesses since 2001, two material weaknesses require long-term corrective action and will not be completely remediated until 2006. Despite these weaknesses, numerous VA financial practices in areas including but not limited to Electronic Commerce/Electronic Data Interchange, audit recovery, and debt collection are recognized throughout the Federal financial management community as a best practice. Improvement is needed in CoreFLS due to test site failure in Bay Pines, Florida.

Evidence: VA's 2003 Performance and Accountability Report (section III) includes VA's audit.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: VA has closed some material weaknesses, made progress on responding to major management challenges identified by the Inspector General, conducted monthly performance review meetings and quarterly business oversight board meetings, reorganized the information technology function, created the Office of Business Oversight, and improved its President's Management Agenda scorecard. Improvement is needed in Human Resources, and in CoreFLS.

Evidence: Monthly Performance Review binders, VA's 2003 Performance and Accountability Report (section I & III) and Volume 4 of VA's FY 2005 Budget demonstrate how management deficiencies are being addressed. VA's Human Resources scorecard outlines areas of improvement (see Q3 FY 2003).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program is on track to meet most long-term performance goals. For example, the percent of VA employees who indicate they understand VA's strategic goals has increased to 70% when the annual goal was just 65%. In addition, VA is developing more long-term performance goals.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures. Caliber Associates conducted an Employee Survey in 2001.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has several dozen measures and is meeting most annual performance goals. For example, the percent of cases using alternate dispute resolution techniques has increased from 54% to 58%. However, some annual goals are still under development.

Evidence: Volumes 3 and 4 of the VA's 2005 Budget and VA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan outline these measures.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Information on increased cost effectiveness is lacking. However, these offices demonstrate annual improvement in efficiencies in several areas, including but not limited to decreased interest penalty payments, increased discounts earned, increased audit recoveries, expanded use of Electronic Commerce/Electronic Data Interchange capabilities, increased usage of the purchase card for micro-purchases resulting in annually higher rebates, and reduction in the cost to collect ratio for debt collection processes.

Evidence: Business Oversight Board meetings and Monthly Performance Review meetings demonstrate this progress.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are other offices that provide similar support functions to other cabinet level agencies, a comparison would be inherently difficult and costly. For instance, there is no government-wide common measures for support functions. Therefore, a study would be required to compare VA's performance to other agencies.

Evidence: Volume 3 of VA's 2005 Budget outlines the functions of these offices.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: For applicable offices, several different types of evaluations have taken place. VA undergoes an annual audit by an independent, private sector audit firm. VA's strong financial management practices are evidenced by the receipt of an unqualified (clean) audit opinion on its Consolidated Financial Statements for the last five consecutive years. Preparedness evaluations, although primarily baseline evaluations because of the newness of the programs, have established that the operations are sufficiently safeguarded. Recommendations to improve operations, efficiencies, and effectiveness contained in the evaluations have been implemented. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General periodically review program operations. The program has implemented and continues to work on implementing their recommendations.

Evidence: Some examples of evaluations include: Financial Section (Part III) of VA's FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report; Comprehensive Evaluation of VA's Corporate Human Resources Function and Organizational Structure; and General Accounting Office reports on information technology management (January 2004) and Human Capital (January 2004).