CSA
Summary
Read the report at California State Auditor ↗
The County
Veterans Service
Officer Program:
The Program Benefits Veterans and Their
Dependents, but Measurements of
Effectiveness As Well As Administrative
Oversight Need Improvement
April 2000
99133
The first copy of each California State Auditor report is free.
Additional copies are $3 each. You can obtain reports by contacting
the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216
OR
This report may also be available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
C S A
ALIFORNIA TATE UDITOR
MARY P. NOBLE STEVEN M. HENDRICKSON
ACTING STATE AUDITOR CHIEF DEPUTY STATE AUDITOR
April 13, 2000 99133
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its
audit report concerning the County Veterans Service Officer program (CVSO program). This
report concludes that although the CVSO program benefits veterans, methods for measuring its
effectiveness need improvement, and the California Department of Veterans Affairs (department)
should improve its administrative oversight of the program. Specifically, counties that
participate in the CVSO program (CVSOs) and the department should improve the reporting of
benefits and savings associated with the CVSO program, and the department’s report to the
Legislature and letters to counties citing such accomplishments should be viewed with caution.
Even if the department reported accurate figures, such benefits and savings should not serve as
the only measure of the success of the CVSO program. Instead, CVSOs should do more to
analyze and improve their own operations, and the department should do more to improve the
program statewide. In addition, the department does not ensure that its allocations of funds to the
counties are based on accurate data, and it has not maximized its federal reimbursement of the
CVSOs’ cost-saving activities. Finally, the department should improve its oversight of the
training and accreditation process for CVSO personnel.
Respectfully submitted,
MARY P. NOBLE
Acting State Auditor
BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 445-0255 Fax: (916) 327-0019
CONTENTS
Summary 1
Introduction 5
Chapter 1
Although the CVSO Program Benefits
Veterans, Methods for Measuring Its
Effectiveness Need Improvement 11
Recommendations 24
Chapter 2
The California Department of Veterans
Affairs Should Improve the Effectiveness
and Administrative Oversight of the
CVSO Program 27
Recommendations 41
Appendix
The California Department of Veterans
Affairs’ Report of Benefits Resulting From
the CVSO Program 45
Responses to the Audit
California Department of Veterans Affairs 47
Los Angeles County 53
San Diego County 55
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From San Diego County 59
Yuba County 61
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From Yuba County 63
SUMMARY
RESULTS IN BRIEF
C
alifornia’s County Veterans Service Officer program
(CVSO program) plays a key role in helping military
veterans, their dependents, and their survivors (veterans)
Audit Highlights . . . receive the benefits and services for which these individuals
qualify because of the veterans’ service to their country. Working
Our audit of California’s
in partnership with state and federal departments of veterans
County Veterans Service
affairs and with veterans organizations, counties we visited that
Officer program (CVSO
program) revealed the have established their own CVSO programs (CVSOs) furnish
following: vital assistance to veterans, and these local programs provide a
(cid:1) wide range of services beyond initiating benefit claims. For
The CVSO program has
played a key role in fiscal year 1998-99, the California Department of Veterans
helping veterans, but Affairs (department) reported that the CVSO program assisted in
reports of significant
obtaining for veterans more than $160 million in new or increased
benefits and savings cited
benefits. The department also reported that the program
as program accomplish-
ments should be viewed achieved significant savings for public assistance programs as
with caution. well as increases in tax revenues for counties.
(cid:1)
Even if reports of benefits
Nevertheless, our review disclosed that those who make decisions
and savings were accurate,
other indicators should about the CVSO program should view with caution these favor-
also be used by county able reports of benefits and savings. Neither the CVSOs nor the
CVSO programs (CVSOs)
department has established sufficient procedures to ensure the
and the California
Department of Veterans accuracy of the information reported. For example, although we
Affairs (department) to could not calculate the magnitude of the error, we determined
gauge the effectiveness of
that the dollar amount of benefits reported by some CVSOs is
the program.
inflated because the CVSOs did not report increases to existing
(cid:1)
The department does not benefits correctly. Additionally, the department has based on
ensure that its allocations outdated and irrelevant data the significant local tax revenues it
of state and federal funds
cites as a benefit of the program when the department prepares
to counties are based on
its annual letters to counties that participate in the CVSO program.
accurate data.
(cid:1)
The department has not
Even if the department reported these figures correctly, such
maximized its federal
benefits and savings should not serve as the only measure of
reimbursement of CVSOs’
cost-saving activities. whether the CVSOs are serving veterans successfully. Instead,
the CVSOs should do more to analyze and improve their own
Furthermore, the department
operations, and the department should do more to improve the
needs to improve its oversight
of the training and program by evaluating performance statewide. No law or
accreditation process for regulation precludes the department from establishing statewide
CVSO personnel.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 1
goals, investigating why county performance data vary, and
recommending practices for improvement; however, the depart-
ment has not yet done so.
Additionally, although the department has established a generally
reasonable process for allocating state and federal funds, the
department does not ensure that allocations are based on accurate
data. In fact, although state regulations require it to audit
selected counties annually to validate information that serves as
the basis for the allocations, the department has performed only
one audit since 1996.
Our review also showed that the department does not maximize
its federal reimbursement for cost-saving activities by CVSOs,
which assist their counties in avoiding costs for the California
Medical Assistance (Medi-Cal) program and public assistance
programs by identifying veterans who are ineligible or only
partially eligible for these programs because of the amount of
veterans benefits they receive. However, CVSOs receive federal
funding for their Medi-Cal cost-saving efforts only. The depart-
ment should seek federal funds to reimburse CVSOs that help
reduce costs for public assistance.
Further, CVSOs missed an opportunity to use an increase in state
funding for fiscal year 1998-99 to expand or improve program
services. The Legislature did not specify how counties were to
spend the increase, and the counties we visited used the funds to
reduce the amount of county funds spent on the program.
Finally, the department needs to improve its oversight of the
training and certification process for CVSO personnel who assist
veterans in the benefit claims process. The department has
established a generally appropriate process for certifying that
CVSO personnel meet federal Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) standards for accreditation. However, the department does
not have a method for ensuring that all individuals who require
accreditation earn that status, nor does it make certain that
those individuals who are accredited receive ongoing training.
Finally, the department needs to ensure that training manuals
and certifying examinations are current and approved by the VA.
2 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Legislature should clarify whether it intends counties to use
future budget increases in state funding to improve and expand
CVSO program services or to reduce the counties’ share of
program costs.
The department should improve the reporting of benefits and
savings associated with the CVSO program in several ways, such
as ensuring that counties understand how to report benefit
increases and developing appropriate estimates of local
tax revenues.
Additionally, all CVSOs should establish appropriate controls
over their reporting of benefits and other information to
the department.
To better measure and improve the effectiveness of the program,
the CVSOs and the department should work together to develop
goals and productivity measures for CVSOs to determine
achievement toward the goals. Additionally, to identify program
areas that need improvement, the department should analyze
differences among CVSOs using key information reported
by CVSOs.
Further, the department should improve its administration of
funding in various ways. For example, it should audit selected
CVSOs annually, as required, to validate information it uses to
allocate funds to each county, or the department should seek to
change the requirement and establish an appropriate alternative
process to ensure the accuracy of necessary information.
Additionally, the department should seek federal reimbursement
for CVSOs’ efforts in reducing public assistance costs.
To ensure that CVSO personnel are qualified to provide assistance,
the department should develop procedures to identify
individuals who should be certified for accreditation and ensure
they take action to become accredited. In addition, the depart-
ment should establish procedures to make sure that accredited
individuals receive ongoing training and implement additional
procedures to ensure that training materials, including manuals
and examinations, receive updates and appropriate approvals.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 3
AGENCY COMMENTS
The department, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, and
Yuba County agree with the recommendations directed to each
of them. (cid:1)
4 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
E
stablished in 1946, the County Veterans Service Officer
program (CVSO program) focuses on helping veterans and
their families obtain benefits to which they are entitled as
a result of military service. The 56 counties that participate in
the program work in partnership with the California Department
of Veterans Affairs (department), veterans organizations, and the
federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to obtain these
benefits. Veterans benefits come in many forms, including
disability compensation, health care, and vocational rehabilita-
tion. According to the VA, about one-third of the nation may be
eligible for VA benefits and services because veterans’ dependents
and survivors may also qualify for assistance. This report uses
the term veterans to refer collectively to veterans, their dependents,
and their survivors.
Individual programs, referred to as CVSOs, are located in partici-
pating counties. Many of the other organizations are represented
at the VA’s three regional locations in Oakland, Los Angeles, and
San Diego. CVSOs play a role in the partnership of organizations
by working with veterans to initiate and develop claims for
benefits and to provide a local source of information for veter-
ans. Additionally, CVSOs assist their counties by responding to
requests for information on VA benefits provided to veterans
who have applied for the California Medical Assistance
(Medi-Cal) program or public assistance services. (In this report,
public assistance refers to welfare benefits, such as cash payments
for general assistance.) By aiding the counties in this manner,
the CVSOs help identify veterans who are ineligible or only
partially eligible for Medi-Cal or for public assistance payments
because of the amount of veterans benefits they receive, thereby
saving some costs.
When dealing with the VA, veterans typically make the department or
another organization their designated representative by giving the
organization power of attorney. The department maintains
district offices to represent California veterans before the VA.
Service organizations, such as the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, among
others, also serve as designated representatives to veterans
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 5
who appoint these organizations to act on the veterans’ behalf.
The VA denies or awards benefits based on its review of the
veterans’ claims.
The CVSO Program Receives Funding From Several Sources
In fiscal year 1998-99, the department received nearly $3.5 million
in state funds and almost $1.0 million in federal funds for the
CVSO program. The department allocated more than $3.1 million
of that total to the counties. During the same period, counties
contributed approximately $8.4 million to fund their CVSO
operations. Figure 1 shows the composition of the more than
$11.5 million in funding that went to CVSOs during fiscal
year 1998-99.
FIGURE 1
Sources of Funding for CVSO Operations
Fiscal Year 1998-99
Federal funds
$840,000
State license plate funds
$196,000
State subvention funds
(General Fund)
County funds
$2.1 million
$8.4 million
As Figure 1 indicates, $2.1 million, or the bulk of the State’s
contribution, came from the General Fund and is called subven-
tion funding. The department also allocated $840,000 in federal
funds to counties to partially reimburse CVSOs for their efforts
in reducing Medi-Cal costs. Finally, the department distributed
to CVSOs $196,000 derived from sales of the State’s veterans
license plates.
Federal Regulations Require CVSO Personnel to Meet
VA Standards for Accreditation
All individuals, including CVSO personnel, who assist and
represent veterans in preparing, presenting, and prosecuting
claims for veterans benefits must, under federal regulations,
6 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
undergo a specific accreditation process. Accreditation refers to
the recognition by the VA of individuals to represent veterans
who submit benefits claims. Organizations that the VA has
determined serve the needs of veterans—such as the department,
the American Legion, and the Disabled American Veterans—may
apply to the VA for each person it wants to have accredited as a
representative of that organization. Federal regulations require
that the organizations certify to the VA that individuals applying
for accreditation meet training standards, pass an examination,
and fulfill other criteria.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (committee) requested
that the Bureau of State Audits determine if the CVSO program
provides cost-effective assistance to California veterans, assess
whether the data submitted by CVSOs and reported by the
department are accurate, and evaluate whether increased state
funding led to more extensive or improved program services.
The committee also asked us to determine whether the depart-
ment ensures that it distributes CVSO funds appropriately and
to assess the department’s process for certifying that CVSO
personnel meet VA standards for accreditation.
To analyze whether the CVSOs supply cost-effective assistance to
veterans, we focused on the services the CVSOs provide and the
benefits and savings they help generate. Moreover, we consid-
ered other measures of the CVSO program’s effectiveness. To
determine if the program furnishes necessary, valuable assistance
to veterans, we interviewed staff and reviewed evidence of
services offered at the CVSOs in Los Angeles and San Diego,
which are counties with large veterans populations, and also at
the combined CVSO for Yuba and Sutter counties, which together
have a relatively small veterans population. Additionally, we
interviewed managers and staff at the department’s headquarters
in Sacramento and at the district offices in Oakland and Los Angeles,
and we spoke to representatives of the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars as well as
to managers at the federal VA. We learned the role each organi-
zation plays in the claims process and assessed whether the
process warrants more appropriate coordination or reorganization.
At the three CVSOs in our review, we examined the accuracy of
reported monetary benefits to veterans, ascertained how the
CVSOs record and report the benefits, and traced a sample of
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 7
30 benefits awarded in fiscal year 1998-99 to the VA award
letters in claimants’ files. (However, for one CVSO, we were
unable to test 3 benefits in our original sample of 10 from that
county because county staff had destroyed the files containing
the source documents. In this instance, the CVSO thought it was
following department guidelines. We brought this issue to the
department’s attention so it can clarify to the CVSOs its instruc-
tions on record retention.) Then, to confirm the accuracy of the
department’s reporting of benefits, we compared the total
benefits recorded by the counties in our sample to amounts
listed in the department’s report to the Legislature and in its
letters to counties. To determine the appropriateness of the
department’s technique for estimating local tax revenue accruing to
the counties as a result of VA benefits, we asked Department of
Finance staff for its evaluation. We also reviewed the process by
which the department reports public assistance savings resulting
from efforts of the CVSOs.
To evaluate the effectiveness of CVSO operations at the counties
we visited, we interviewed CVSO personnel. We obtained their
perspectives on whether the acquisition of benefits for veterans
is a valid measure of the program’s effectiveness and whether
other measures of productivity could come into play. We also
interviewed department managers to learn what measures they
had employed to gauge program effectiveness throughout
the State.
To assess whether CVSOs improved or expanded their services as
a result of a fiscal year 1998-99 budget augmentation by the
Legislature, we looked at how the CVSOs at the three counties
we visited spent their shares of the increased funding.
When we examined how appropriately the department distrib-
uted state and federal funds to CVSOs, we reviewed the
department’s allocation process for these funds. We determined
whether the CVSOs we visited reported to the department valid
workload activities, such as the filing of claims, which are used
as the basis for allocating funds. To do so, we compared a sample
of 39 workload activities listed in the CVSO reports to the
department with those appearing in records at the CVSOs. As in
the case of our tests for awarded benefits, we were unable to test
2 of the workload activities in our original sample at one CVSO
because the county had destroyed the files.
8 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Further, we reviewed the Medi-Cal cost-saving agreement
between the department and the Department of Health Services
for fiscal year 1998-99 and evaluated the calculations on which
these departments based the agreement. To determine why the
department did not have a similar agreement with the
Department of Social Services for federal funds to reimburse
CVSOs for their efforts to reduce public assistance costs, we
interviewed managers at the department and at the Department
of Social Services. We also tested a sample of 30 expenditures by
the CVSOs to assess whether they were allowable and reasonable.
To evaluate the department’s training, certification, and
accreditation process, we spoke to department managers and to
CVSO personnel. In addition, we reviewed relevant documenta-
tion to understand the responsibilities and policies of the CVSOs
and the department for ensuring that individuals who assist
veterans in claims preparation meet VA standards. At the three
CVSOs we visited, we determined whether CVSO personnel had
earned accreditation. Moreover, we interviewed the VA regional
counsel and reviewed documentation to find out whether the
department had updated its training manuals and examinations
recently and whether these documents had received VA approval.
Finally, we reviewed the department’s process for providing
ongoing training to CVSO personnel. (cid:1)
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 9
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
10 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
CHAPTER 1
Although the CVSO Program Benefits
Veterans, Methods for Measuring Its
Effectiveness Need Improvement
CHAPTER SUMMARY
T
he County Veterans Service Officer program (CVSO
program) plays a key role in providing necessary services
and benefits to California veterans, but reports by the
California Department of Veterans Affairs (department) of
benefits and savings attributable to the program contain inaccu-
racies. In the three counties we visited, the local CVSO programs
(CVSOs) provide vital assistance to veterans in obtaining benefits
from the federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and furnish
a wide range of services beyond the initiation of benefit claims.
Moreover, reports prepared by the department indicate that
CVSOs have helped to acquire significant amounts of benefits
for veterans and also brought about noteworthy savings in
public assistance programs. However, our review disclosed that
certain reported benefits and savings are inaccurate and should
be viewed with caution. Even if the department reported these
figures correctly, such benefits and savings should not function
as the only measures of whether the CVSOs are serving veterans
successfully. Instead, the CVSOs should do more to analyze and
improve their own operations.
CVSOs PLAY A KEY ROLE IN OBTAINING BENEFITS
FOR VETERANS
To obtain benefits for veterans, CVSOs work in partnership with
the department, other veterans service organizations, and the
VA. CVSOs are important members of this coordinated effort
because they are located in the communities where veterans live
and are able to offer one-on-one assistance to veterans who file
claims for VA benefits. Because there appears to be appropriate
coordination among the various entities, we do not believe the
current process warrants reorganization.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 11
As Figure 2 shows, the claims process typically begins when the
veteran calls or visits the local CVSO to inquire about VA benefits.
Based on its discussion with the veteran, the CVSO will initiate a
claim for one or more specific entitlements. Generally, the CVSO
forwards this claim to the entity designated to represent the
claimant, through power of attorney, in all matters before the
VA. The designated representative may be any one of a number
of service organizations recognized by the VA, including the
American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, or the department. The designated representative
reviews the claim and forwards it to the VA for consideration.
Subsequently, the VA determines whether it will award or deny
the benefit. The veteran may appeal a denied claim to the VA
regional office that made the decision or appeal the case all the
way to the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals.
FIGURE 2
A Typical Benefit Claims Process for a California Veteran
de
nies
benefit
Visits
C
or V S
O
ds
ar
w
A
Veteran
County Veterans Service Officer
Program in Participating County (CVSO)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
(prepares claim with veteran's assistance)
m
S
u b cl
ai
m
its
a
n's
th
e
veteran'sclaim
Forwardsthe
veter
Service Organizations or
California Department of Veterans Affairs
(designated representative for the veteran*)
* In the event the veteran disagrees with the VA’s decision, the designated representative works with the veteran through the
appeals process.
12 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
To help veterans in their communities obtain VA benefits,
counties have established CVSO programs. Counties do not have
the resources to maintain staff at the VA regional offices to
represent veterans at key points in the process or to interact with
the VA. Consequently, CVSOs rely on the service organizations,
which employ professionals to act on veterans’ behalf at the
regional offices. On the other hand, the service organizations
and the department, like the VA, lack the resources to provide staff
in the communities, and they rely on the CVSOs to work directly
with veterans and to take the first steps in obtaining benefits.
CVSOs are not the only organizations or individuals to initiate
claims. Veterans may prepare and submit claims themselves, or
To a greater extent than they may request the assistance of any service organization or
others, CVSOs work with the department, which has staff near the three VA regional
veterans to initiate and offices. Nonetheless, to a greater extent than the department or
develop claims. any service organization to which we spoke, CVSOs provide
ready assistance to veterans and work closely with individual
veterans to initiate and develop claims.
We attempted to determine how much of the claims assistance
to veterans the CVSOs carry out as compared to the amount of
help supplied by service organizations, the department, and the
VA regional offices in the same local jurisdiction. Neither the VA
nor the department maintains the data to enable us to make
such an assessment. However, we talked to three service organi-
zations located near VA regional offices about their role in the
claims process and the performance and value of the CVSO
program. Because the department can also represent the veteran
through a designated representative, we also spoke with the
department’s district manager for the Oakland region. According
to the service organizations and the department, although they
review claims to some degree before forwarding them to the VA,
their primary role in the claims process is to help ensure the
appropriateness of the VA’s award decision, and, if necessary,
represent the veteran during the appeal process if the veteran
disagrees with the decision. At that point, the veteran’s represen-
tative prepares the case. The three CVSOs we visited informed us
that the representatives often ask the CVSOs for support during
the appeals process because the CVSOs have access to and a
relationship with the veteran.
According to most service organizations with which we spoke,
CVSOs are valuable to the veterans community because they
assist in preparing a large portion of benefits claims on behalf of
veterans. When asked how many claims these organizations
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 13
receive from CVSOs as a percentage of the total claims they
forward to the VA from all sources, including their own mem-
One organization bership, Veterans of Foreign War representatives estimated that
commented that if the claims from CVSOs compose from 60 percent to 95 percent of all
CVSO program did not their claims. Additionally, all the service organization and
exist, 90 percent of department representatives to whom we spoke provided positive
veterans needing service comments about the importance of the CVSO program. For
would be “out in example, responses referred to CVSOs as being “on the front-
the cold.” line” and in the community. Other comments were that the
program was very valuable and that if the CVSO program did
not exist, 90 percent of veterans needing service would be “out in
the cold.”
CVSOs Provide a Wide Range of Services Beyond Initiating
Claims for Benefits
Claims work is only part of what a CVSO does. CVSOs assist
veterans with any issue relevant to these individuals’ military
service and with all veterans entitlements. CVSOs also advocate
for the homeless and mentally-ill veteran. Beyond initiating
claims for service-connected disabilities, each of the CVSOs we
visited aid and counsel veterans on a wide range of VA benefits
and services. For example, CVSOs help veterans gain access to
VA medical facilities, provide assistance to homeless veterans,
help survivors with funerals for veterans, and aid indigent
veterans with legal problems. CVSOs also supply a local source
of information for county officials that helps reduce county
program costs. Specifically, CVSOs help lower the costs of the
California Medical Assistance (Medi-Cal) program and public
assistance programs by responding to county requests for
information on VA benefits received by veterans applying for
program services. By serving the counties in this manner, the
CVSOs assist in identifying veterans who are ineligible or only
partially eligible for Medi-Cal or public assistance payments.
CVSOs are active in their communities in other ways as well.
One of the CVSOs we visited stated that the office routinely
arranges transportation to a VA clinic for veterans’ appoint-
ments. Often, CVSO personnel pick up other veterans’ medical
prescriptions at the clinic’s pharmacy at the same time. In
addition, CVSOs assist homeless veterans to secure housing, and
they participate on veterans’ councils and community advisory
boards. For example, the Yuba-Sutter CVSO is on the board of
directors of the Central Valley Homeless Veterans Program. This
program seeks to reduce the incidence of homeless veterans in
Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa counties by establishing and maintaining
14 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
such comprehensive homeless intervention services as
counseling and referral services for those veterans desiring a
change in lifestyle.
The Department Reported That the CVSO Program Helped
Achieve Significant Benefits and Savings
For fiscal year 1998-99, the department reported that the CVSO
program assisted in obtaining more than $160 million in new
and increased benefits for veterans. During this same period,
state funds for the program were approximately $3.5 million.
The figures indicate a significant return on state costs. The
federal government also contributed nearly $1 million in reim-
bursements for certain activities. Further, although larger than
state and federal funding for the program, county allocations
provided a relatively small amount of resources—$8.4 million for
fiscal year 1998-99. Because CVSOs play a role in the partnership
The department reported
that is responsible for obtaining veterans benefits, a comparison
for fiscal year 1998-99
of the significant benefits reported to the costs associated with
that CVSOs assisted in
the CVSO program suggest that, viewed from a statewide
obtaining more than
perspective, the program is cost-effective.
$160 million in new
and increased benefits
Since 1998, state law has required the department to report
for veterans.
annually to the Legislature the amount of new or increased
monetary benefits paid to veterans attributable to the assistance
of CVSOs. When it established this requirement, the Legislature
expressed its intent that it would use the information to
determine whether the monetary benefits justify potential
annual increases in state funding for the program. A list of the
benefits that the department reported for fiscal year 1998-99
appears in the Appendix.
The department also sends annual letters to the county boards
of supervisors informing them of the achievements of their
CVSOs. In addition to the new and increased benefits informa-
tion that it reports to the Legislature, the department cites other
advantages and savings arising from the CVSO program: the
annual amount of cash benefits the VA provided for that county,
local tax revenues associated with both the total cash benefits
and the new benefits, and public assistance savings. The dollars
cited can be significant. For example, in a July 1999 letter to the
San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the department reported
that during fiscal year 1997-98, the San Diego CVSO won for
the county’s veterans population more than $15 million in new
cash benefits. The department further reported that these awards
led to more than $2.4 million in new local tax revenue.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 15
The letter reported total cash benefits that the VA provided as
$272 million, crediting much of this amount to the past efforts
of San Diego’s CVSO. The department also stated that these
benefits resulted in more than $43.5 million in local tax rev-
enue. Further, the department’s letter stated that actions taken
by the CVSO to obtain and maintain monetary benefits brought
about savings for the county’s social services department, as
more than $4.1 million in public assistance payments were
avoided. The department reported that with a net cost to the
county for its CVSO program of just $324,000, the CVSO was
one of the “few revenue-producing offices in the county.”
However, as we discuss in the following sections, we have
concerns about the accuracy of reported benefits and savings by
CVSOs. Additionally, even if correctly reported, benefits and
savings are not the only measures of whether CVSOs are effective.
DECISION MAKERS SHOULD VIEW REPORTED BENEFITS
AND SAVINGS WITH CAUTION
The benefits and savings reported by the department appear
commendable, but our review revealed that certain benefits and
Neither the CVSOs nor savings were inaccurate. In some cases, the inaccurate reporting
the department ensures resulted from inappropriate methodologies. For example, in its
the accuracy of reported annual letters to the counties citing the accomplishments of
benefits and savings. their CVSOs, the department estimates significant local tax
revenues resulting from the benefits awarded to veterans that
the CVSO played a part in obtaining. However, the department
based these estimates on a report from nearly 25 years ago that
is both outdated and irrelevant. Additionally, although the
department relies on information reported by the counties for
the benefits and savings that it points to as accomplishments of
the program, neither the CVSOs nor the department ensures the
accuracy of the information reported. Thus, those using these
reported benefits and savings to make decisions regarding the
CVSO program should view the figures with caution.
The Department’s Reporting of Certain Benefits and Savings
Is Inaccurate
In examining the department’s annual report to the Legislature
and its annual letters to counties, we noted problems with the
way CVSOs record increases in existing benefits, the method the
department uses to estimate tax revenue arising from new or
16 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
increased veterans benefits, and the procedures the department
and CVSOs use to report public assistance savings. These flaws in
reporting methods have created incorrect data.
In those instances in which veterans received increases in the
monthly compensation they were awarded previously, some
Some CVSOs incorrectly CVSOs recorded the full amount of the new compensation
reported increases in rather than the incremental increase. Thus, the CVSOs reported
existing benefits and the monthly compensation that the veteran had already been
thus overstated the receiving as a “new or increased” benefit even though the
effectiveness of their county had already reported the original amount when the VA
operations. made the previous award.
Reporting in this manner overstates a CVSO’s effectiveness in
obtaining increased benefits. We spoke to department management
about this matter, and it confirmed that the department intended
for CVSOs to report incremental increases only. Apparently,
however, the department’s instruction manual used by CVSOs
has contributed to the problem. The manual instructed the
county programs either to record the new claim in full or not to
record the new claim at all, depending on whether the VA has
made a previous award within the last 12 months. We were not
able to determine the extent of the reporting error in the coun-
ties we visited, but our observations suggest that the amount of
new and increased monthly benefits reported by the CVSOs and
used by the department are inflated.
In addition, we have concerns over the department’s methodology
for reporting other program accomplishments in its letters to
counties. In these letters, the department lists estimates of
significant local tax revenue. For example, as discussed previously,
the department stated in its letter to San Diego County that new
awards to veterans during fiscal year 1997-98 led to $2.4 million
in new local tax revenue and that annual cash benefits produced
more than $43.5 million in local tax revenue overall. The
department further stated that it used Department of Finance
estimating techniques to arrive at these amounts. Our audit
showed that the department computed these estimates using a
factor from a Department of Finance report issued in 1975.
However, beyond the fact that the report was issued nearly 25
years ago, the factor in the report did not refer to tax revenues;
instead, it referred to the county’s share of the funding for
public assistance payments at that time. We do not see the
correlation between the funding for public assistance payments
and new taxes generated. Further, we spoke to Department of
Finance representatives, who confirmed that it appears “highly
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 17
inappropriate” to use that factor. The Department of Finance
indicated that it was unaware of an acceptable technique for
estimating these local tax revenues without reviewing both the
operations of the program and its clients. We believe that these
estimates could be significantly in error. If the department
chooses to continue reporting this kind of information, it needs
to develop a new estimating methodology.
Moreover, the amounts that the department reports as public
assistance savings in its letters to the counties are not always
The public assistance actual savings. When a veteran requests public assistance
savings the department through the county social services department, the county
reports as accomplish- eligibility staff, which determines the amount of public assistance
ments of the CVSO the veteran may receive, asks the CVSO to verify any income the
program do not always veteran may be receiving from the VA. In addition, the county
reflect actual savings. eligibility staff will request that the CVSO apply for any veterans
benefits to which the veteran may be entitled. The CVSO deter-
mines the amount of aid, if any, records the monthly amount
on a referral form, and returns it to the county eligibility staff.
The county eligibility staff may note that the CVSO verified the
amount of income that the veteran receives from the VA and
that the veteran failed to report. Using the income verification,
the county eligibility staff will reduce accordingly the public
assistance award for the veteran. The department reports the
verified VA benefits as public assistance savings in its letters to
the counties. The logic behind reporting in this manner is that
for every additional dollar of reported income, including VA
benefits, the county public assistance program saves a dollar it
otherwise would have spent on the applicant.
Although the department reports these amounts as savings for
the counties’ social services departments, the reductions in
public assistance payments do not save county funds exclu-
sively. Federal and state monies also fund certain public assis-
tance payments. Further, although the CVSO’s reporting on a
public assistance applicant’s income can potentially result in
savings, it does not always do so. For example, sometimes the
veteran has appropriately disclosed his veteran’s income on the
application for public assistance funding. In that case, the CVSO
is simply verifying income information that the county has
already considered when it determined the amount of public
assistance to which the applicant was entitled, and the CVSO’s
efforts do not result in any additional savings. Nevertheless, the
CVSOs report to the department the dollar amount of the
benefits they verify, and the department subsequently reports
these dollars as savings to the counties.
18 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Actual savings to counties may be less than reported by the
department for another reason. For each applicant, public
assistance has a ceiling. If a county applicant has no income, the
county will provide the maximum public assistance payment
allowed. On the other hand, if an applicant’s income equals or
exceeds the maximum, or the ceiling, the county provides no
public assistance payments. When this situation occurs, the
county saves what it did not provide. The most a county can
save is the maximum amount of public assistance payments
allowed. However, rather than report the amount the county
program actually saves, CVSOs report the entire VA benefit the
veteran receives as income, even when this income exceeds the
maximum public assistance allowed. This calculation is
clearly incorrect.
Additionally, in its letters to the counties, the department does
not list savings to the Medi-Cal program as accomplishments of
the CVSO program even though efforts by the CVSOs to verify
veterans’ income for the Medi-Cal program are much the same
as their efforts for the public assistance program. The department
requires CVSOs to document the dollar amount of benefit
awards by the VA that they have verified for veterans eligible for
Neither the CVSOs nor Medi-Cal. Nonetheless, according to the department, it only
the department has reports this information to the Department of Health Services as
calculated the amount of part of an agreement that provides federal funds to reimburse
Medi-Cal savings resulting CVSOs for their Medi-Cal cost-saving activities. However, as is
from the CVSO program. the case with public assistance, reported veterans benefits do not
necessarily represent actual Medi-Cal savings. Neither the CVSOs
nor the department has actually calculated savings to the Medi-Cal
program. The department would need to develop a new reporting
methodology if the department were to begin reporting Medi-
Cal savings as an accomplishment of the CVSO program.
We were unable to determine the extent to which the
department’s reported benefits, local tax revenues, and savings
are misstated because of the various conditions described above.
However, we believe the reported information is inaccurate and
warrants the department’s attention.
Neither the CVSOs nor the Department Ensures the Accuracy
of the Information Reported
Because the CVSOs we visited have not made certain that they
are submitting to the department correct information about
veterans benefits and savings, those who use this information
should view it with caution. The CVSOs lack effective procedures
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 19
for ensuring the accuracy of the data they submit, but the
department nonetheless relies on this data when it prepares its
reports on veterans benefits and on savings to the State and
the counties.
None of the CVSOs we visited had a quality control process that
involved a supervisor or other individual who spot-checks the
No one at the CVSOs we accuracy of the data by tracing the recorded information back to
visited spot-checked the the supporting documentation. In fact, the head of one CVSO
accuracy of data reported we visited stated that although it was his responsibility to ensure
to the department. the data he reports to the department is accurate, the depart-
ment does not “provide, require, or recommend any procedure
to ensure the accuracy” of the data. Two of the offices we visited
use computer software to report benefits and other information.
However, based on our discussions with county staff, we are
concerned there may be an overreliance on the software to
detect errors in reporting. For example, although we had been
told that the computer software used by some CVSOs has a
built-in edit to prevent duplication of entries, we found that
information for one award was recorded twice. Additionally, the
software is not designed to catch other kinds of errors, such as
someone entering the incorrect award data or calculating an
incorrect amount.
In fact, even the limited review of benefits we performed disclosed
errors in reporting at one of the CVSOs. We tested the recording
of 10 awards at the San Diego CVSO and found that 2 of the
awards were calculated incorrectly, 1 was calculated correctly but
recorded incorrectly, and 1 did not have any supporting
documentation. We also noted that the CVSOs lacked sufficient
procedures to ensure that staff appropriately summarized the
detailed reporting of the awards for semiannual reporting to the
department. The Yuba-Sutter CVSO prepares its reports manually.
When we reviewed Yuba-Sutter’s semiannual report, we found
that it did not include more than $20,000 in awarded benefits
included in the detailed reports. Although the amount was not
significant to the total reported, the error indicates the absence
of a review of the reporting process. Additionally, we found that
the Los Angeles and San Diego CVSOs did not retain the com-
puter-generated support for their semiannual reports, and this
historical information cannot be recreated due to limitations of
the computer system. Thus, we could not review whether these
CVSOs appropriately summarized the information.
20 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Further, although the department states that it is responsible to
ensure that all CVSOs submit semiannual reports that are
thorough, accurate, and complete, it does not have procedures
to ensure that CVSOs do so. The department receives summary
information only, and it appears as though the department’s
review procedures are, at best, limited to comparing the current
report to previous reports. Thus, it is critical that CVSOs have
effective procedures to ensure the accuracy of data and
summary reports.
INCREASED BENEFITS AND SAVINGS ARE NOT THE
ONLY MEASURES OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
Even if the department and CVSOs were to report veterans
benefits and public assistance savings accurately, we question
whether these reports should serve as the sole measures of the
CVSO program’s effectiveness. As the Appendix to this report
indicates, certain CVSOs reported that they helped obtain
significantly higher benefits than other CVSOs for the veterans
in their respective counties. Similarly, public assistance savings
The mere magnitude of that the department attributed to the program vary significantly
benefits and savings among counties. However, the mere magnitude of a CVSO’s
alone does not indicate benefits and savings does not indicate whether that CVSO is as
whether a CVSO effective as it could be. Other useful measures might be reductions in
is effective. claims processing times, a decrease in office costs per staff
assigned from one year to the next, or a percentage increase in
benefits awarded over time.
As just one part of a partnership that involves several other
players, CVSOs are not exclusively responsible for veterans’
success in receiving benefits or for savings. Because they result
from combined efforts, these benefits and savings cannot measure
directly how well CVSOs are carrying out their responsibilities.
For example, certain CVSOs may prepare claims more completely and
quickly than do other CVSOs, and this efficiency may result in
veterans obtaining their awards earlier.
Additionally, assessing the CVSO program’s effectiveness solely
according to benefits and savings ignores significant assistance
provided to veterans that is difficult to quantify but that merits
recognition. The Los Angeles CVSO points out that CVSO
personnel supply information, referrals, and assistance to veterans
and their families to help them obtain other types of federal,
state, or county benefits and services. For example, CVSOs help
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 21
veterans gain access to VA medical facilities, thus effectively
helping individuals, especially those with low incomes, and
saving the county the cost of that treatment. Assistance to
homeless veterans, survivors with funerals, and indigent veterans
Assessing the CVSO with legal problems are other examples of CVSOs’ necessary,
program’s effectiveness responsive, and effective public service that improves the quality
solely according to of life for veterans.
benefits and savings
ignores significant Clearly, those who evaluate CVSOs for their success in meeting
assistance that is difficult veterans’ needs must also take demographics into account. It
to quantify but that seems reasonable that CVSOs in counties with large veterans
merits recognition. populations, such as San Diego and Los Angeles, may file more
claims and obtain more monetary benefits from the VA than do
CVSOs in other counties. In addition, for fiscal year 1998-99,
Solano and San Diego counties, which host large military instal-
lations, reported large awards of one-time benefits from the VA
that amounted to more than 20 percent of all the one-time
benefits for the entire State. According to the department,
counties with large military installations typically have large
numbers of claims for life insurance and other survivors’ benefits
that require little effort for CVSOs to initiate.
Although benefits and savings are important, they cannot be
viewed in isolation as measures of success. CVSOs should do
more to measure the effectiveness of their own operations.
CVSOs SHOULD DO MORE TO ANALYZE THEIR OWN
OPERATIONS
When assessing whether its CVSO successfully assists veterans,
each county should look to its own program for evidence that
the staff is performing well, and the CVSO should develop
specific methods for evaluating and reporting its productivity.
Counties are not required to establish a CVSO program. As
counties prepare their annual budgets, it is reasonable to expect
them to question the effectiveness of each element of county
government, including their CVSO programs. How can counties
be assured that their CVSOs are worthwhile? The CVSOs we
visited regard the department’s annual letter reporting benefits
and savings as valuable tools for assessing their counties’ contin-
ued funding of their local CVSO programs. However, county
boards of supervisors and administrators should be cautious
when relying on such data provided by the department.
22 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Counties should look directly to their CVSOs for evidence of
their effectiveness, and CVSOs should supply their counties
with key indicators of their performance. We found that each of
the CVSOs we visited do, to varying degrees, furnish program
performance data directly to their counties. For example, in fiscal
year 1998-99, the San Diego CVSO reported to the county board of
supervisors that data collection initiated in October 1998 and
ending in June 1999 showed that a new database software pack-
age reduced by 14 percent to 18 percent the staff time involved
with processing and preparation of veteran claims. This CVSO
also reported that by June 1999, the number of veterans assisted
increased by only 7 percent over the prior year, compared to the
goal of 10 percent. The San Diego CVSO explained that the
shortfall was due to a decline in veterans benefits verification
and referral forms submitted by public assistance applicants as
more veterans moved off the public assistance rolls.
The Los Angeles CVSO reported that its goals for fiscal year
1998-99 were, for example, to increase the number of claims it
submitted by 3 percent and to increase the number of college fee
Counties should look to waivers for disabled veterans’ dependents by 14 percent. In an
their own CVSOs to October 1999 letter to his county’s chief administrative officer,
determine effectiveness the Los Angeles CVSO reported that the increase in claims
rather than rely solely on submitted exceeded the 3 percent goal and actually gained
reports from the 11 percent over fiscal year 1997-98 figures. Further, this CVSO
department. reported that college-fee-waiver applications increased signifi-
cantly over the previous year, but awards granted rose only
10 percent instead of the 14 percent projected. An example of a
performance measure that the Yuba-Sutter CVSO reported was
that the number of its interviews with veterans regarding en-
titlements increased from 1,725 in 1997 to 3,054 in 1998.
We believe that these types of performance measures have value,
but more analyses should be done using other effectiveness
measures that all CVSOs have readily available. CVSOs could
more comprehensively view their productivity by looking at key
indicators of benefits; workload activities, such as the number of
claims filed and other similar efforts; number of staff; and their
total operating budgets. CVSOs could then compare all these
indicators from one year to the next. For example, according to
data obtained from the Yuba-Sutter CVSO for fiscal year 1998-99,
the dollar amount of benefits obtained per workload activity was
$2,712. Benefits obtained per staff member were more than
$3.2 million, operating budget per staff was more than $59,000,
total operating budget per workload activity was $50, and
workload activity per staff was almost 1,190. Although the figures
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 23
for one year may have limited value, they could take on signifi-
cance when compared to past periods. CVSOs could also use
these indicators to evaluate the productivity of individual
staff members.
Further, CVSOs should analyze their operations and implement
Once CVSOs analyze their practices to improve their own operations. For example, by
programs, they should analyzing the benefit claims process from the time a claim is
implement practices to initiated to the date of its award, CVSOs could identify the
improve their operations. events that delay processing of the claims, including those they
can control and those they cannot. CVSOs should devise a
means to “age” their claims, identifying claims that have not
received decisions from the VA after a specified time period.
Focusing on the areas they can control, CVSOs should attempt
to reduce by a determined percentage over the previous year the
time required for those areas. CVSOs should identify backlogs in
the process and assist in attempting to reduce them. Our review
revealed that certain claims take a long time to proceed through
the system. The service center manager in the VA regional office
in Oakland believes that a lack of well-grounded claims, as well
as reductions in the number of VA staff, have contributed in part
to a backlog that has grown more severe over recent years. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims defines a well-grounded
claim as plausible, meritorious on its face, or capable of
substantiation, so that it has a reasonable chance of being
granted. Because CVSOs play a critical role in developing the
claims, it is important for CVSOs to continue focusing their
efforts on ensuring that claims are well grounded.
CVSOs should work with the department to develop goals and
productivity measures that are meaningful, quantifiable, and
reasonable. CVSOs should use these goals and measures to identify
areas that need improvement and take appropriate actions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve the reporting of benefits and savings associated with
the CVSO program, the department should take the following
actions:
(cid:127) Clarify instructions so that CVSOs report only the increase in
a benefit award when a prior benefit has been awarded.
24 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
(cid:127) Develop an appropriate estimating technique for calculating
local tax revenues resulting from veterans benefit awards if
the department wishes to continue reporting local tax revenues.
(cid:127) Consider whether it wants to continue reporting public
assistance savings to counties and, if so, ensure it reports
accurate savings. Also, the department needs to consider
whether it should report savings for the Medi-Cal program.
If identification of actual savings is not cost-effective, the
department should determine whether it can provide counties
with a reasonable estimate of the savings.
Additionally, to improve the accuracy with which they report
program information to the department, all CVSOs should
implement appropriate controls over their reporting of benefits
and savings.
Finally, CVSOs should take the following actions to better
measure and improve the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf
of veterans:
(cid:127) Work with the department to develop goals and productivity
measures for CVSOs.
(cid:127) Report to their respective counties and the department annu-
ally their progress in meeting the goals and productivity
measures.
(cid:127) Analyze their own operations and implement practices to
improve their operations. (cid:1)
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 25
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
26 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
CHAPTER 2
The California Department of
Veterans Affairs Should Improve the
Effectiveness and Administrative
Oversight of the CVSO Program
CHAPTER SUMMARY
A
lthough individual counties can improve their own
County Veterans Service Officer programs (CVSOs), the
California Department of Veterans Affairs (department)
can do more to maximize the effectiveness of the CVSO program
as a whole by evaluating the counties’ performance and improv-
ing administrative oversight. Our review revealed that although
no laws or regulations preclude the department from establishing
statewide goals, investigating why performance data vary among
CVSOs, and recommending practices for improvement, the
department has not done so.
Additionally, the department has established a generally reason-
able process for allocating state and federal funds; however, it
does not ensure the accuracy of the data it uses to determine
those allocations. The department may also be missing an
opportunity to obtain more federal funds for CVSOs. Although
CVSOs perform activities that result in cost savings for both the
California Medical Assistance (Medi-Cal) program and public
assistance programs, CVSOs receive federal reimbursements only
for their efforts related to Medi-Cal savings. More than six years
ago, the department attempted unsuccessfully to acquire federal
funds for similar CVSO services that pertain to public assistance,
but it has not pursued the matter since then.
The department also needs to improve its oversight of the
training and certification process for CVSO personnel who assist
veterans in the claims process. The department has developed a
generally appropriate process for certifying CVSO personnel who
seek accreditation. However, the department does not have
procedures for identifying all individuals who require accreditation
and for ensuring that accredited individuals receive required
ongoing training. Further, it has not ensured that training
manuals and certifying examinations are current and
approved appropriately.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 27
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH STATEWIDE
GOALS AND INVESTIGATE WHY COUNTY DATA VARY
One of the strengths of the CVSO program and its services is the
program’s accessibility to veterans within the counties where
The department could these individuals live, and the success of each CVSO depends
do more to enhance largely upon its county’s commitment to the overall program.
the effectiveness of the Nevertheless, the department has a responsibility to the program
CVSO program as a whole and to each CVSO, which looks to the department
throughout the State. for guidance as well as for funding. Indeed, the department
could do more to enhance the program’s effectiveness through-
out the State and to work with CVSOs in developing the goals
and productivity measures that we discuss in Chapter 1 of this
report. Because it collects data from all CVSOs, the department is
also in a unique position to evaluate the CVSO program’s overall
success in serving veterans and reducing county costs.
The department believes it has a reporting system for determining
the productivity of each CVSO. However, the department does
not analyze the data it receives from that reporting system, nor
does the department give the Legislature any productivity or
effectiveness measures beyond its figures for the amount of
veterans benefits the CVSO program assisted in obtaining
during the year. As we point out in Chapter 1, these figures
contain inaccuracies.
The department should analyze the differences in data reported
by CVSOs, perform comparative analyses, and attempt to deter-
mine reasons for these differences in key performance indicators
so that it can identify areas in which the CVSOs and the entire
program can improve. The department should also set statewide
goals for improved service to veterans.
Specifically, the department could compare one CVSO to another
using the same key indicators that Chapter 1 suggests counties
use to determine why productivity varies so widely. For example,
in fiscal year 1998-99, monetary benefits obtained per workload
activity in the Yuba-Sutter and Los Angeles CVSOs were $2,712
and $525, respectively. As Chapter 1 explains, workload activi-
ties represent such tasks as the filing of claims. The figures
indicate that Yuba-Sutter obtains more than five times the
benefits for each workload activity than does Los Angeles even
though Yuba-Sutter serves a much smaller veterans population.
28 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
However, during the same period, the workload activities at
Yuba-Sutter totaled a little more than one-fourth the number of
activities performed in Los Angeles. Why? Could it be that staff
at Yuba-Sutter was more productive? Or that Yuba-Sutter filed
more claims of the type that required little effort and resulted in
larger benefit awards than did staff at the Los Angeles CVSO?
The department does not investigate and analyze significant
differences that would enable it to know the extent to which the
results reflect reasons outside the CVSO’s control or whether the
discrepancies point to CVSO operations that each county could
improve. If the department examined such differences, it could
also identify best practices and recommend that all counties
implement such practices.
Moreover, the department is in a stronger position than any
individual CVSO to work with the federal Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) in resolving backlogs and recommending changes in
the claims process. The department should complete its own
statewide analysis of the claims process to determine where
significant delays occur. If it notes excessive delays at a particular
regional office for the department or at a regional VA office, the
department should attempt to identify and resolve the problems.
Finally, the department should work with CVSOs to develop
reasonable, effective statewide goals to improve the service all
The department is in a CVSOs provide to California veterans. For example, according to
position to coordinate a the VA, nearly 2.7 million veterans were living in California as
statewide outreach of July 1999. On the other hand, according to the CVSOs we
program and should visited, many veterans who may be entitled to benefits are not
work with CVSOs and aware of their eligibility. Although we observed outreach efforts
others to establish at each CVSO, none had established goals or a means to measure
statewide goals the effectiveness of that outreach. Because it is in a position to
and a means to coordinate a statewide outreach program, the department could
measure progress. work with CVSOs, service organizations, and the VA to establish
statewide goals and a means to measure progress toward the
goals. Specifically, the department could determine the number
of veterans in each county who do not yet receive benefits and
review potential approaches CVSOs have already used and those
not yet attempted in each county. Additionally, it could set
appropriate and measurable outreach goals for each county for
the next year and have CVSOs report their progress in this area
to the department and to their counties.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 29
THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE HOW IT
DISTRIBUTES STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO
COUNTIES WITH CVSOs
Although the department has established a generally reasonable
process for distributing state and federal funds to counties with
CVSOs, it needs to improve this process to ensure that counties
receive appropriate amounts. Additionally, neither the department
nor the CVSOs ensures the accuracy of the data on which the
department bases the allocations. For example, although the
department is required by state regulations to audit selected
counties annually to validate each county’s reported workload
activities, the department has performed only one such audit
since 1996. Further, the department may be missing an opportu-
nity to allocate more funds for CVSOs. Currently, the CVSOs
receive reimbursements for helping their counties reduce Medi-Cal
program costs by identifying veterans who have applied for
Medi-Cal benefits but who are ineligible or only partially eligible
for Medi-Cal because of the amount of their VA benefits. The
CVSOs perform a similar role when they help lower costs for the
counties’ public assistance programs, but the CVSOs do not
receive reimbursements for these efforts, and the department has
not pursued compensation for the CVSOs in more than six
years. Finally, even though state funding for the CVSO program
rose during fiscal year 1998-99, the increase did not prompt an
expansion of program services in the counties we visited.
Although the Department Has Established a Generally
Reasonable Process for Allocating Funds to Counties, the
Process Needs Some Revisions
For fiscal year 1998-99, the department allocated to CVSOs more
than $3.1 million in state and federal funds to cover part of the
CVSOs received more counties’ costs to run the CVSO program at the local level. The
than $3.1 million in state department administers the sources of funding—the subvention,
and federal funds Medi-Cal cost-saving, and license plate programs—for the
through the department’s CVSOs, and its procedures for distributing this money to counties
allocation process for generally appear reasonable. Nevertheless, some aspects of the
fiscal year 1998-99. department’s process for allocating state and federal funds have
flaws that could prevent counties from receiving their fair
portions of funds earmarked for the CVSO program.
The state and federal funds that the department allocates to
CVSOs come from multiple sources. In fiscal year 1998-99, the
Legislature provided to the department $2.1 million in subvention
funding, or money from the State’s General Fund, to help pay for
30 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
CVSO activities. The department also contracts annually with
the State Department of Health Services (Health Services) to
obtain federal funds to reimburse CVSOs for a portion of their
costs for performing activities that result in savings to the
Medi-Cal program. For fiscal year 1998-99, the department re-
ceived more than $960,000 in federal reimbursements for Medi-
Cal. Of that amount, the department allocated $840,000 to
counties. The department used the balance to help cover its
expenses for administering the Medi-Cal cost-saving program as
well as for reimbursement of claims processing activities. Finally,
for the same fiscal year, the Legislature appropriated $196,000 to
distribute to counties from money available through the Veterans
Service Office Fund (license plate fund). Each year, a portion of
each registration fee paid for a veterans license plate goes into
the license plate fund. The department allocates to counties
participating in the CVSO program money from this fund to
cover partially any expenditures not reimbursed through
subvention funds or Medi-Cal reimbursements.
Having established a process designed to ensure that each
county receives its fair share of the funding, the department
The department allocates allocates to each county semiannually state subvention and
state subvention and federal Medi-Cal funds by prorating that county’s number of
Medi-Cal funds based on workload activities against the workload activity total for all
workload activities counties. The department also distributes twice yearly to coun-
reported by the CVSOs. ties their share of the license plate funds; however, it bases each
allocation on a prorated share of each county’s net program
expenditures against the statewide total of county expenditures.
A county’s net program expenditures are the difference between
the county’s program costs for the fiscal year and its share of
both subvention and Medi-Cal reimbursement funds. Based on
our review, we believe that the department has established a
generally reasonable process for allocating state and federal
funds to the CVSOs.
However, we noted a few areas in which the department needs
to make improvements. Specifically, the department does not
use an appropriate basis for distributing a portion of its subvention
funds to CVSOs. When the department allocates Medi-Cal funds, it
uses figures for workload activities related to the cost-saving
program for Medi-Cal. However, when the department allocates
its subvention funds, it uses workload activities that correlate
with subvention funds as well as some of the Medi-Cal workload
activities reported by the CVSOs. For example, during fiscal year
1998-99, the department based its allocation of Los Angeles
County’s share of the $2.1 million in state subvention funds on
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 31
the 7,930 workload activities reported by the Los Angeles CVSO
in its semiannual workload activity report. However, 719 of the
7,930 workload activities (9 percent) relate specifically to the
Medi-Cal cost-saving program. Thus, the department used the
The department can 719 workload activities twice—once to allocate the subvention
improve its current funding and once to allocate the Medi-Cal funds. We were not
allocation process by able to document the effect this miscalculation had on the
ensuring that workload Los Angeles CVSO or on other CVSOs in the State. However,
units are not double we question the double counting of workload activities and
counted and by ensuring conclude that the current allocation process does not ensure
that it meets certain that individual counties receive a fair share of the $2.1 million
limitations set by in subvention funds. After we brought this allocation error to its
state regulations. attention, the department agreed with our analysis and plans
to change its procedures for calculating distributions of
subvention funds.
Additionally, we are concerned that the department is not
taking steps to ensure that it meets the following limitations set
by state regulations:
(cid:127) Each payment made to CVSOs under the subvention program
is not to exceed 50 percent of the county’s expenditures for
the program or 50 percent of the annual subvention alloca-
tion, whichever is less.
(cid:127) Each CVSO’s annual allocation from the Medi-Cal cost-saving
program is not to exceed the difference between its CVSO
program costs and the total subvention payments made to it.
(cid:127) Finally, each CVSO’s allocation of license plate funds is not to
exceed 75 percent of its program costs, less its subvention and
Medi-Cal fund allocations.
Because the department has not made certain that allocations
fall within these limitations, errors may occur in its allocation of
both state and federal funds, and counties may not secure their
fair shares of available funds. For example, we found that for
fiscal year 1998-99, four counties received overpayments total-
ing nearly $5,900 because the department failed to consider the
50 percent limit on the subvention allocation. We also tested the
limitation on allocations of Medi-Cal funding. Although our
review of data for six counties did not show any overpayments
in this area, a possibility exists that some counties will not get
a fair share of state and federal funds if the department fails
to comply with requirements related to allocations of
Medi-Cal reimbursements.
32 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
The Department Does Not Verify the Accuracy of Data It Uses
in Its Decisions for Allocating Funds
Although the department bases its allocations of state and
federal funds for veterans services on workload data from
CVSOs, the department has not instituted procedures to ensure
that such data are correct. Consequently, counties may not be
receiving equitable funding for veterans benefits and services.
State regulations require the department to perform annual
audits of selected CVSOs to verify each CVSO’s reported
workload activities. To meet this requirement, the department
established a policy for performing on-site audits. In an on-site
audit, the department visits the CVSO and confirms the staff’s
workload activities by matching veterans’ case files with the
county’s semiannual workload activity report. Our review
disclosed that the department has performed only one such
audit since 1996 because it believes that these audits are not a
cost-effective use of its resources. However, the department has
not sought to change the requirement.
Additionally, CVSOs do not make certain that the workload data
used in the department’s allocations are correct. No CVSO we
Although audits of visited had adequate procedures for verifying the accuracy and
selected CVSOs are completeness of the workload data it submitted to the depart-
required annually, the ment. All three CVSOs submitted workload activity reports that
department has contained errors. Although the errors are not significant, each
performed only one such CVSO needs procedures to ensure that its workload activity
audit since 1996. reports are accurate. Data errors have the potential to prevent
CVSOs from obtaining equitable funding for their operations.
The Department Needs to Ensure That CVSOs Receive
Appropriate Reimbursements for Cost-Saving Activities
The department may be missing an opportunity to obtain addi-
tional federal funds for CVSOs. Although CVSOs perform similar
activities that result in cost savings for both the Medi-Cal and
public assistance programs, CVSOs receive federal reimbursements
only for the savings CVSOs bring to the Medi-Cal program.
Department staff attempted more than six years ago to negotiate
an agreement to secure federal funding for CVSO cost-saving
activities related to public assistance, but the department has not
pursued the matter since then. Further, although CVSOs receive
federal funds to recognize their efforts in reducing Medi-Cal
costs, the funding is based on a methodology established in
fiscal year 1993-94 that has not received a recent review to
confirm that it is still appropriate.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 33
We noted that CVSOs received reimbursement for their partici-
pation in the Medi-Cal cost-saving program but not for their
CVSOs are reimbursed for efforts directed at cost savings to public assistance programs.
their Medi-Cal cost- Under an agreement the department has with Health Services,
saving activities, but not CVSOs focus their efforts on establishing veterans benefits for
for efforts that save veterans in health facilities who are eligible for Medi-Cal benefits.
public assistance funds. In practice, staff at health facilities or the county health
department asks CVSOs whether a veteran applying for or
already receiving health care is receiving monthly benefits from
the VA. A county uses this information to determine how much
it will pay for the costs of a veteran’s care under the Medi-Cal
program. The CVSO determines the monthly amount, if any,
that the veteran receives from the VA, and the CVSO enters the
figure on a referral form and returns the form to the requester.
Similarly, county social services departments ask CVSOs for the
same information so that the county departments can determine
the veteran’s eligibility for public assistance. In fact, the CVSO uses
the same forms and performs the same activity for both the
Medi-Cal and public assistance programs. However, because the
department does not have an agreement with the State’s
Department of Social Services (Social Services), CVSOs receive no
reimbursements for their efforts in the public assistance area.
In 1993, the department attempted to negotiate an agreement
with Social Services for federal reimbursement of CVSO activities
that save public assistance dollars. However, in a July 1993 letter
to the department, Social Services said that “federal authorities
have taken the position that the activities performed by the
Veterans Service Officers in conjunction with public assistance
clients are not allowable public assistance activities, and cannot
be claimed for federal financial participation. Consequently, we
cannot use our claim process for passthrough of funds for these
activities.” When we asked staff members at Social Services to
explain why CVSO efforts are not allowable, they could offer no
explanation. We question why the department has not pursued
this matter further, especially because more than six years have
passed since the department’s inquiry.
Conversely, the department does have an agreement with
Health Services to provide federal funding for CVSO activities
that reduce Medi-Cal costs. However, the department cannot
demonstrate that the methodology used to compute this fund-
ing—a methodology that includes workload estimates developed
in fiscal year 1993-94—is still appropriate. As part of its fiscal
year 1998-99 agreement with Health Services, the department
34 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
received more than $960,000 in federal Medi-Cal funds. Of this
amount, the department billed Health Services for more than
$120,000 in administrative costs and claims processing activities
and allocated the balance to CVSOs. The current year’s agree-
ment with Health Services gives the department $1.02 million,
with the increase resulting from a cost-of-living adjustment.
Because it has not performed a review of its own or the counties’
Because the department workload activities and thus cannot demonstrate that the
has not reviewed certain workload estimates are still appropriate for calculating Medi-Cal
workload estimates funding of CVSOs, the department cannot be sure it is receiving
developed in fiscal year an appropriate level of reimbursement for the counties’
1993-94, it does not cost-saving activities.
know if the CVSO
program is receiving an
The CVSOs We Visited Did Not Use Their Increased State
appropriate level of
Funding to Expand or Improve Program Services
federal funding for its
cost-saving activities. Although the CVSOs received extra state funds for veterans
services during fiscal year 1998-99, the CVSOs missed an
opportunity to use the increased funding to expand or improve
program services. During that fiscal year, the Legislature in-
creased its subvention funding for the CVSO program by more
than 30 percent, adding a $500,000 augmentation to its appro-
priation of $1.6 million from the General Fund. The Legislature
did not state how the CVSOs were to use the augmentation, nor
did the department believe it should restrict the counties’ use of
the additional funds. Thus, the counties had the latitude to use
the money as they wished. The counties we visited used the
augmentation to partially offset the funds they provided for
CVSO operations rather than to expand or improve the services
offered to veterans by increasing the total funding spent on the
program.
Although the department distributed the entire $2.1 million in
subvention funding to the CVSOs, it did not notify the counties
about the additional funds, and it did not begin allocating the
increased funding until March 1999, more than eight months
after fiscal year 1998-99 began. Because the department did not
separately identify to counties the amount resulting from the
augmentation, it did not prompt CVSOs to consider asking
their boards of supervisors or administrators for increased
spending authority.
The three CVSOs we visited told us they were not aware of their
shares of the augmentation. If they had known about this
additional money, they would have had to request adjustments
to their county budgets to permit the expenditure of the funds
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 35
on their CVSO programs. In fact, these CVSOs did not spend the
The CVSOs we visited did extra funds on their programs. Yuba-Sutter, Los Angeles, and
not use their share of an San Diego counties received approximately $12,000, $41,000
increase in state funds to and $56,000, respectively, as their share of the $500,000 state
expand or improve their budget augmentation. Because these counties did not use the
programs. Instead, they augmentation to increase the total amounts they spent on their
spent fewer county CVSO programs, it resulted in the counties spending fewer
dollars on their county dollars on their CVSO programs. In fact, although it
CVSO programs. received approximately $56,000 in increased state funding,
San Diego reduced its total CVSO program expenditures in fiscal
year 1998-99 by almost $24,000 from the previous year.
THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS OVERSIGHT
OF THE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR
CVSO PERSONNEL
The department, like the VA, recognizes that individuals who
assist veterans in securing VA benefits must be knowledgeable in
their field, and it has a generally suitable process for training
and certifying for accreditation according to VA standards those
who seek to represent veterans and their dependents. However,
the department lacks procedures for identifying CVSO personnel
who require such accreditation, and it does not verify that those
who have been accredited take required ongoing training.
Furthermore, the department has failed to demonstrate that it
consistently updates or receives VA approval for its training
manuals and examinations.
The Department Generally Follows an Appropriate Process
for Certifying Individuals Who Seek Accreditation
To ensure that veterans receive “qualified representation,” the
department participates in the VA’s accreditation process for
individuals required to meet the VA’s standards for representing
veterans. Such representation includes assisting veterans to
prepare and submit benefit claims, and thus the VA requires that
CVSO personnel who have these duties be accredited. The
department’s role in the accreditation process is to certify that
individuals meet criteria specified by the VA and to recommend
those individuals for VA accreditation.
According to VA officials, veterans service organizations, and the
department, VA accreditation is a valuable tool because it estab-
lishes a minimum level of competency for individuals who assist
veterans. Without this standard, the VA could potentially deny
36 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
some veterans all or part of the benefits to which they are
entitled because the veterans’ representation is inadequate or
uninformed. The VA’s process requires the department to certify
that individuals seeking accreditation have met requirements
outlined in federal regulations.
According to these federal regulations, the department also has
certain responsibilities for training of CVSO staff personnel.
First, the department must certify that CVSO personnel applying
for accreditation have successfully completed a course of training
and an examination that a VA regional counsel within the State
has approved. Second, the department must certify that the
CVSO personnel will receive regular supervision and monitoring
or annual training.
The department certifies that CVSO personnel have completed a
Accreditation is a training course and an examination. The examination covers
valuable tool because it material presented in the department’s training course as well as
establishes a minimum all applicable federal laws and regulations. Once individuals
level of competency begin the training process, they receive a training manual
for individuals who developed by the department. The manual contains lessons on
assist veterans. various topics relating to the claims process, such as the types of
VA benefits that are available to veterans. Individuals who have
completed the lessons in the training manual must inform the
department that they are ready to take the examination.
The scope of the examination includes the VA’s claim-and-appeal
process, veterans’ eligibility requirements, available benefits, and
filing deadlines. Individuals who pass the examination are
required to submit to the department a completed VA applica-
tion for accreditation. Upon receiving the application, the
department certifies that the individual has met the regulatory
requirements and submits the application to the VA, which will
then accredit the individual.
When the department submits to the VA an accreditation
application from CVSO personnel, the department also certifies
that the individual will receive regular supervision and monitor-
ing or annual training. In addition to certifying that each accredited
individual will receive proper oversight, the department requires
that each county with a CVSO program send at least one
representative to training sessions held three times each year. If
a CVSO fails to send at least one person to a session, the depart-
ment withholds a portion of that county’s subvention funding
designated for training and redistributes it to those CVSOs that
attended the training. The California Association of CVSOs
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 37
develops the training agenda. The association is a nonprofit
educational and professional organization through which
CVSOs help each other advocate and file veterans benefit claims.
According to the department, CVSO personnel may also receive
training from other sources.
The Department Lacks a Process to Identify CVSO Personnel
Who Require Accreditation
Even though the department’s certification process appears
relatively sound, we are concerned that the department’s efforts
The department’s efforts focus on approving CVSO personnel who actively seek accredita-
focus on approving CVSO tion rather than on ensuring that all individuals who require VA
personnel who actively accreditation receive that endorsement. The department has
seek accreditation rather indicated its desire to have all CVSO personnel who assist with
than on ensuring that all claims accredited, but it has not established a process to identify
individuals who require and encourage individuals lacking accreditation to become
accreditation obtain it. accredited. As a result, CVSO personnel are exposed to potentially
valid criticism regarding their ability to represent veterans.
The department does not maintain a statewide list of CVSO
personnel who are not accredited to ensure they are on track for
training, testing, certifying, and accreditation. Without such a
tool to manage the process, the department cannot ensure the
accreditation of all CVSO personnel who require accreditation.
The department believes its responsibility is limited to establish-
ing a certification test for accreditation and to certifying all
CVSO personnel when they pass the approved examination and
submit applications for accreditation. However, we believe that
the department can and should do more. It is critical that
veterans receive services from qualified CVSO personnel, and
accreditation is the process that ensures these individuals attain
a minimum standard of expertise. Instead of focusing narrowly
on CVSO personnel who seek accreditation, the department
should concern itself with all individuals who assist veterans
and have not yet received accreditation. At each of the three
counties we visited, we encountered at least one individual
assisting and counseling veterans who had not earned accredita-
tion from the VA. Although these individuals may possess
adequate knowledge to represent and assist veterans effectively,
their lack of accreditation exposes them to the potential criticism
that they are unqualified.
For example, during our review of the qualifications of Los Angeles
CVSO personnel, we identified a staff member who assisted
veterans despite the fact that he did not have VA accreditation.
38 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
This individual worked in a separate office in the county, and he
had no direct supervision. The county hired this individual as a
A staff member at one veterans claims assistant in 1990. The county’s minimum quali-
CVSO we visited has fications for this position required the applicant to assist veterans
assisted veterans for with their claims, but they did not require VA accreditation. In
10 years yet still September 1993, the department informed the Los Angeles
lacks accreditation. CVSO of this individual’s need for accreditation. Later that same
year, this individual failed the department’s certification test.
When we visited the Los Angeles CVSO in January 2000, this
individual still lacked VA accreditation. Because he failed the
department’s certification test and neglected to obtain VA accredi-
tation during his 10-year employment, this staff member’s ability
to assist veterans adequately is subject to question. According to
the Los Angeles CVSO, as a result of our discussion, the representa-
tive has since been working under supervision and will be retested.
The Department Needs to Ensure That Its Training Manual
and Examinations Are Current and Approved by the VA
During our review of its training manual and examinations for
the accreditation process, the department could not show us
that either the manual or the tests have received regular updates.
Indeed, CVSOs have been using the department’s 1992 training
manual, and this potentially outdated material could be
inaccurate. To serve as links between the VA and veterans,
CVSOs and their staff members need up-to-date information
on claim requirements.
The department stated that its practice is to identify changes in
relevant laws and to modify the manual as needed. However,
the department could not provide evidence of updates to the
manual or an official policy on how the updates are to occur.
Although the department maintains that it has issued training
manual revisions via bulletins since 1992, it has not used the
manual’s format to prepare these revisions, so the bulletins do
not integrate easily into the manual. As a result, we question
whether these bulletins are actual training manual updates or
general information notices. This approach to disseminating
new material could generate staff confusion about what is
accurate because the original training material may differ from
information that the bulletins present. Additionally, although
the department has revised its certification examination five
times since it created the first test in 1991, we could not determine
if the examinations received updates regularly to ensure that the
questions addressed current, relevant information.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 39
Moreover, the department could not provide any evidence that
either its training manual or certification examinations, with
The training manual and one exception, had received the approval by the VA that federal
examinations the regulations require. The VA has approved neither the training
department uses in its manual in use since 1992 nor the recently developed training
certification process lack manual, which became effective January 1, 2000. In addition,
required federal approval. although the department has revised its examination five times,
VA records show that the VA approved the first test only, and
that authorization occurred in 1991. The department maintains
that regulations do not require VA approval of its training
manual and only require approval of the initial certification
examination. However, the VA has a different interpretation of
these regulations. According to our conversations with the
current VA regional counsel’s office, which has authority over
the approval process, copies of the current examination and
manual should be on file in that office, and the department should
submit for approval subsequent updates of the examination.
The Department Does Not Make Certain That Accredited
CVSO Personnel Receive Required Training
The VA requires that CVSO personnel who are accredited receive
either regular supervision and monitoring or annual training to
assure continued qualification. The department, focusing on the
VA’s training requirement, has directed that all accredited CVSO
personnel take refresher training annually; however, the
department does not ensure that accredited individuals
receive the required training.
According to the department, individuals may obtain refresher
training at statewide training sessions offered three times each
year or from other sources. However, the department does not
always know who attends the statewide training sessions. The
California Association of CVSOs administers the training sessions
and provides rosters to the department that list the counties
represented. We found that only one of the three training
session rosters for fiscal year 1998-99 identified attendees by
name. Further, the department does not know the extent to
which individuals receive training from other sources, nor does
it know whether the training provided is adequate. Because the
department does not monitor training in any manner, it does
not know that counties are complying with its requirement for
annual training. The department should review its training
requirements and procedures to ensure that accredited CVSO
personnel receive adequate ongoing training.
40 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Legislature makes future budget augmentations, it should
clarify whether it intends counties to use the money to decrease
their funding of the CVSO program or to supply additional
resources for CVSOs so they may expand or improve
program services.
To better measure and improve the effectiveness of the CVSO
program, the department should do the following:
(cid:127) Work with CVSOs to develop program goals and productivity
measures for CVSOs to report to their county governments.
(cid:127) Require each CVSO to report to the department annually its
progress in meeting goals and productivity measures.
(cid:127) Set statewide goals for the CVSO program, such as goals for
reaching out to veterans not yet served, and establish measures
to determine their achievement. Additionally, to identify areas
for improvement, the department should analyze differences
among counties using key information reported by CVSOs.
To make sure it allocates state and federal funds properly, the
department should take these actions:
(cid:127) Modify its allocation procedures for subvention funds to
ensure that it uses only appropriate workload activities as the
bases for the allocations.
(cid:127) Comply with all allocation limitations set by state regulations.
(cid:127) Audit CVSOs, as required by state regulation, to validate the
workload activities it relies upon in the allocation process, or
seek to change the regulation. If it chooses to change the
regulation, the department should either establish an alternative
process to ensure data accuracy or justify why an alternative
is unnecessary.
Additionally, to improve the accuracy with which they report
program information to the department, all CVSOs should
ensure they have established proper controls over their reporting
of workload data.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 41
To ensure that the department and CVSOs receive appropriate
federal reimbursements for their efforts associated with cost-saving
activities related to the Medi-Cal and public assistance programs,
the department should take the following steps:
(cid:127) Seek to negotiate an agreement with Social Services that
would reimburse counties with federal funds for CVSOs’
efforts in reducing public assistance costs.
(cid:127) Review the workload estimates developed in fiscal year
1993-94 under the department’s agreement with Health
Services for claiming reimbursements for Medi-Cal cost-saving
activities so that the department confirms that the estimates
are still appropriate.
To make certain that CVSO personnel who assist and counsel
veterans are qualified to provide such aid, CVSOs should ensure
that those lacking VA accreditation seek it.
Similarly, to ensure that CVSO personnel have the proper quali-
fications to assist veterans, the department should implement
the following safeguards:
(cid:127) Develop procedures to identify CVSO personnel who require
accreditation and make sure they take proper steps to become
accredited.
(cid:127) Create procedures to verify that training materials, including
manuals and examinations, receive necessary, regular updates
that include information from departmental bulletins and
other sources. Also, the department should ensure that the
VA approves all new instructional materials, including train-
ing manuals, updates to manuals, and each certifying exami-
nation.
(cid:127) Review its training requirements and procedures to ensure
that accredited CVSO personnel receive adequate ongoing
training.
42 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
MARY P. NOBLE
Acting State Auditor
Date: April 13, 2000
Staff: Karen L. McKenna, CPA, Audit Principal
Arn Gittleman, CPA
Tony Nevarez
Grant Parks
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 43
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
44 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
APPENDIX
The California Department of
Veterans Affairs’ Report of Benefits
Resulting From the CVSO Program
S
tate law requires the California Department of Veterans
Affairs (department) to report annually the amount of new
or increased monetary benefits that the federal govern-
ment pays to veterans and is attributable to the assistance of the
County Veterans Service Officer program (CVSO program) in
participating counties (CVSOs). To meet this requirement, the
department reports, by county, to the Legislature the annual value
of benefits obtained and the value of one-time benefits with
which CVSOs assisted. The reported benefits for fiscal year
1998-99 appear in the table on the next page. The annual value
of benefits obtained represents each county’s total of new
monthly benefits or benefit increases awarded by the federal
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) multiplied by 12.
It is important to recognize that the VA does not pay to veterans
all of the funds represented by these annualized figures in the
year that the department reports the figures. For example, for a
new benefit that began halfway through the year, the report
would reflect 12 months of the monthly benefit rather than the
6 months that the veteran received benefit payments. However,
this methodology accurately reflects the amount paid annually
in subsequent years because of these new or increased benefits.
Each figure for the total value of one-time benefits represents the
total of each county’s benefits awarded by the VA in a single
payment. Unlike monthly benefits that continue, one-time
benefits do not. One-time benefits include, for example, life
insurance settlements or a single payment of monthly benefits
calculated retroactively to an earlier filing date.
The department then combines both the annual value of ben-
efits obtained and the one-time benefits obtained to report, by
county, a total amount of benefits obtained with the help of the
CVSO program. According to the report, CVSOs assisted in
obtaining more than $160 million in new or increased benefits
for veterans in fiscal year 1998-99. However, as we discuss in
Chapter 1, certain reported benefits and savings are inaccurate.
Therefore, this information should be viewed with caution.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 45
TABLE
Federal Benefit Payments That CVSOs Helped to Obtain for California Veterans
(Fiscal Year 1998-99)
Annual Value Total Value Total Value
Participating of Benefits of One-Time of Benefits
Counties Obtained Benefits Obtained Obtained
Alameda $ 392,868 $ 882,593 $ 1,275,461
Amador 237,000 187,750 424,750
Butte 613,356 1,598,500 2,211,856
Calaveras 121,776 143,189 264,965
Colusa 98,100 97,347 195,447
Contra Costa 1,785,324 2,520,581 4,305,905
Del Norte 695,556 391,100 1,086,656
El Dorado 1,211,220 1,585,639 2,796,859
Fresno 1,517,352 1,623,508 3,140,860
Glenn 54,732 46,243 100,975
Humboldt 1,294,608 1,766,738 3,061,346
Imperial 392,112 400,041 792,153
Inyo 50,448 181,537 231,985
Kern 3,141,372 3,333,854 6,475,226
Kings 1,148,148 1,055,362 2,203,510
Lake 599,940 746,432 1,346,372
Lassen 58,536 61,764 120,300
Los Angeles 1,600,452 3,229,651 4,830,103
Madera 179,952 236,121 416,073
Marin 686,808 785,092 1,471,900
Mariposa 62,736 84,568 147,304
Mendocino 1,092,312 1,680,550 2,772,862
Merced 941,544 1,032,909 1,974,453
Modoc 63,768 24,276 88,044
Mono 24,936 57,224 82,160
Monterey 2,897,928 3,162,734 6,060,662
Napa 471,300 423,756 895,056
Nevada 688,212 1,109,987 1,798,199
Orange 976,356 1,897,189 2,873,545
Placer 615,228 1,075,633 1,690,861
Plumas 102,780 383,062 485,842
Riverside 3,965,556 5,697,073 9,662,629
Sacramento 1,501,380 2,380,037 3,881,417
San Benito 27,156 31,308 58,464
San Bernardino 4,190,976 4,691,098 8,882,074
San Diego 2,585,976 13,472,547 16,058,523
San Francisco 1,607,124 1,709,549 3,316,673
San Joaquin 2,008,212 1,712,260 3,720,472
San Luis Obispo 959,544 2,032,803 2,992,347
San Mateo 364,980 491,871 856,851
Santa Barbara 1,052,316 1,790,727 2,843,043
Santa Clara 2,159,544 2,742,949 4,902,493
Santa Cruz 1,851,648 1,655,620 3,507,268
Shasta 2,564,448 2,939,823 5,504,271
Siskiyou 302,784 358,501 661,285
Solano 3,333,156 5,729,053 9,062,209
Sonoma 2,812,308 3,779,435 6,591,743
Stanislaus 2,500,752 2,716,916 5,217,668
Tehama 397,212 306,088 703,300
Trinity 48,300 19,246 67,546
Tulare 1,827,144 1,757,781 3,584,925
Tuolumne 359,220 372,967 732,187
Ventura 1,354,044 2,713,771 4,067,815
Yolo 476,892 1,074,590 1,551,482
Yuba-Sutter 3,014,328 3,431,611 6,445,939
Totals $65,081,760 $95,412,554 $160,494,314
Source: California Department of Veterans Affairs’ report to the Legislature.
46 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of the Secretary
1227 ‘O’ Street
Sacramento, California 95814
April 5, 2000
Ms. Mary P. Noble
Acting State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Noble:
This letter is to transmit the California Department of Veterans Affairs response to your
Bureau’s audit findings and recommendations. They are attached both hard copy and
on disc.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you and express my appreciation to
your audit team of Mr. Arn Gittleman, Mr. Tony Nevarez and Mr. Grant Parks. Their
consistent professionalism, attention to detail, concern for confidentiality, and dedi-
cated approach enabled all concerned to experience a smooth audit process.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Gerald Rucker)
GERALD RUCKER
Undersecretary
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 47
CHAPTER I
RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve the reporting of benefits and savings associated with the CVSO program, the depart-
ment should take the following actions:
• Clarify instructions so that CVSOs report only the increase in a benefit award when a prior
benefit has been awarded.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department is taking steps to clarify CVSOs reporting procedures for the posting of a
subsequent reopened claim awards within 12 months of the original award letter date. This
revision will clarify how the differential shall be posted between previous awards and new
increased awards, and how to post the new monthly increase. This will be completed by July
2000.
(cid:127) Develop an appropriate estimating technique for calculating local tax revenues resulting from
veterans benefit awards if the department wishes to continue reporting local tax revenues.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department will immediately discontinue this estimating technique. By October 2000 a new
methodology will be developed and tested.
(cid:127) Consider whether it wants to continue reporting public assistance savings to counties and, if
so, insure it reports accurate savings. Also, the department needs to consider whether it should
report savings for the Medi-Cal program. If identification of actual savings is not cost-effective,
the department should determine whether it could provide counties a reasonable estimate of
the savings. Additionally, to improve the accuracy of reporting of program information to the
department, all CVSOs should implement appropriate controls over their reporting of benefits
and savings.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department will consider both of the above stated recommendations and work with the
CACVSO to analyze options.
Finally, CVSOs should take the following actions to better measure and improve the effectiveness
of their efforts on behalf of veterans:
(cid:127) Work with the department to develop goals and productivity measures for CVSOs
CVSO ISSUE
48 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
(cid:127) Report to their respective counties and the department annually their progress in meeting the
goals and productivity measures.
CVSO ISSUE
(cid:127) Analyze their own operations and implement practices to improve their operations.
CVSO ISSUE
CHAPTER II
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Legislature makes future budget augmentations, it should clarify whether it intends counties
use the money to decrease their funding of the CVSO program or to supply additional resources
for CVSOs so they may expand or improve program services.
To better measure and improve the effectiveness of the CVSO program, the department should do
the following:
(cid:127) Work with CVSOs to develop program goals and productivity measures for CVSOs to report to
their county governments.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department agrees to this recommendation and will work with CVSOs to develop program
goals and activity measures with a target date of April 2001 for completion.
(cid:127) Require each CVSO to report to the department annually its progress in meeting goals and
productivity measures.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department agrees to this recommendation and will work with CVSOs to develop program
goals and activity measure with a target date of April 2001 for completion.
(cid:127) Set statewide goals for the CVSO program, such as goals for reaching out to veterans not yet
served, and establish measures to determine their achievement. Additionally, to identify areas
for improvement, the department should analyze differences among counties using key infor-
mation reported by CVSOs. To make sure it allocates state and federal funds properly, the
department should take these actions:
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 49
CDVA RESPONSE
The department agrees to this recommendation and will work with The California Association of
County Veterans Service Officers (CACVSO) to develop program goals and activity measure
with a target date of April 2001 for completion.
To make sure it allocates state and federal funds properly, the department should take these
actions:
(cid:127) Modify its allocation procedures for subvention funds to ensure that it uses only appropriate
workload activities as the bases for the allocations.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department has changed its procedure for calculating the allocation for subvention funds.
(cid:127) Comply with all allocation limitations set by state regulations.
CDVA RESPONSE
These changes are being developed with an implementation target date of July, 2000.
(cid:127) Audit CVSOs, as required by state regulation, to validate the workload activities it relies upon in
the allocation process, or seek to change the regulation. If it chooses to change the regulation,
the department should establish an alternative process to ensure data accuracy or justify why
an alternative is unneeded.
CDVA RESPONSE
This Department will seek to change the regulation and develop an alternate method to ensure
data accuracy. This will be completed by April 2001.
Additionally, to improve the accuracy of reporting of program information to the department, all
CVSOs should ensure that they have established proper controls over their reporting of workload
data.
To ensure that the department and CVSOs receive appropriate federal reimbursement for efforts
associated with cost-saving activities related to the Medi-Cal and public assistance programs, the
department should take the following steps:
(cid:127) Seek to negotiate an agreement with Social Services that would reimburse counties with
federal funds for CVSOs’ efforts in reducing public assistance costs.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department will meet with the Department of Social Services to explore an inter-agency
agreement that would potentially reimburse counties with federal
50 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
funds based on public assistance cost reductions. The department will establish a CVSO work
group to assist and advise in the project to reach a workable inter-agency agreement that
reflects cost avoidance for the Department of Social Services based upon to work produced by
the CVSO’s. This will be completed by April 2001.
(cid:127) Review the workload estimates developed in fiscal year 1993-94 under its agreement with
Health Services to claim reimbursements for Medi-Cal cost saving activities so that it ensures
the estimates are still appropriate.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department will work with the CVSOs in reviewing workload estimates developed for fiscal
year 1993-94 for Department of Health Services Claim Reimbursements Agreement for Medi-
Cal cost savings activities, insuring that both state and county estimates are appropriate. This
will be completed by April 2001.
To make certain that CVSO personnel who assist and counsel veterans are qualified to provide
assistance, CVSOs should ensure that those lacking accreditation seek it.
To ensure that CVSO personnel are qualified to assist veterans, the department should implement
the following safeguards:
(cid:127) Develop procedures to identify CVSO personnel who require accreditation and ensure they
take action to become accredited.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department is developing procedures to identify all CVSO personnel who require to be
accredited under Federal Law. This will be completed by October 2000.
(cid:127) Create procedures to verify that training materials, including manuals and examinations,
receive necessary, regular updates that include information from departmental bulletins and
other sources, also, ensure that the VA approves all new training materials, including training
manuals or updates to manuals as well as each certifying examination.
CDVA RESPONSE
The department has updated the training manual and is currently working with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs Regional Counsel for approval of the training manual, and the associ-
ated examination for accreditation is being developed. Proposed target date for completion is
October 2000.
(cid:127) Review its training requirements and procedures to ensure that accredited CVSO personnel
receive adequate ongoing training.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 51
CDVA RESPONSE
The department has entered into discussions with the CVSOs to identify all Veteran Services
Representatives (VSR) employed in counties who are not accredited, who require training and
who require testing to ensure that the provisions of 38 CFR 14.629 are met. A tracking system
will also be implemented. The Department will also develop procedures to ensure that all
CVSO personnel will receive regular supervision and monitoring and annual training. The
target date proposed for completion of this recommendation is October 2000.
52 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
Los Angeles, CA 90012
April 6, 2000
Ms. Mary P. Noble
Acting State Auditor
California State Auditor
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Response to final draft, The County Veterans Service Officer Program
Dear Ms. Noble:
In receipt of the final draft audit report in titled The County Veterans Service Officer
Program concurred with the proposed recommendations and is proceeding with their
implementations.
If you have any questions in regards to this subject matter please contact me at (213)
974-4111 or Sandra Davis of the Chief Administrative Office at (213) 974-1104.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Miguel Santana)
Miguel Santana
Assistant Chief Deputy
Supervisor, First District
MS/sf
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 53
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
54 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
Chief Administrative Office
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101-2472
April 5, 2000
Mary P. Noble
Acting State Auditor
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capital Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Karen McKenna
Audit Principal
Dear Ms. Noble:
Chairwoman Dianne Jacob referred your request of March 30, 2000 to my office for
review and comment. The responses to the draft recommendations with comments are
included in the enclosures. We have also provided a copy of our response on a dis-
kette as you had requested.
If you have any questions, please contact W. Harold Tuck, Jr. at (619) 338-2888.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Walter F. Ekard)
Chief Administrative Officer
WALTER F. EKARD
WFE/dq
Enclosures
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 55
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
RESPONSE TO THE STATE AUDITORS DRAFT REPORT 99133 TITLED,
THE COUNTY VETERAN SERVICE OFFICER PROGRAM (CVSO)
On March 29, 2000 the State Auditor’s Office informed the County to comment only on the recom-
mendations beginning on page 23 of the report.
RECOMMENDATION (Page 23)
(cid:127) To improve the accuracy of reporting of program information to the Department, all CVSOs
should implement appropriate controls over their reporting of benefits and savings.
RESPONSE: Agree
(cid:127) CVSOs should take the following action to better measure and improve the effectiveness of their
efforts on behalf of veterans:
(cid:127) Work with the department to develop goals and productivity measures for CVSOs.
RESPONSE: Agree
COMMENT: This office will meet and work with the department to develop statewide goals
and productivity measures.
(cid:127) Report to their respective counties and the department annually their progress in meeting the
goals and productivity measures.
RESPONSE: Agree
COMMENT: San Diego CVSO currently reports on all performance goals and productivity
measures.
(cid:127) Analyze their own operation and implement practices to improve their operations.
RESPONSE: Agree
COMMENT: This office and the Health and Human Services Agency recently conducted a
thorough review of the current performance measures with the assistance of a consulting firm
to refine and add to the current performance measures and goals. All performance measures
and goals have been and will continue to be refined to ensure they are providing the informa-
tion necessary to produce improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of this office.
Other indicators resulting from this audit are being reviewed and incorporated into the current
practices.
56 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
RECOMMENDATION: (Page 29)
(cid:127) If the Legislature makes future budget augmentations, it should clarify whether it intends coun-
ties use of the money to decrease their funding of the CVSO program or to supply additional
resources for CVSOs so they may expand or improve program services.
RESPONSE: Disagree
1
*
COMMENT: San Diego County Board of Supervisor’s position is local control on revenue for this
program.
(cid:127) Additionally, to improve the accuracy of program information reporting to the department all
CVSOs should ensure that they have established proper controls over their reporting of
workload data.
RESPONSE: Agree
2
COMMENT: Based on state instruction received February 16, 1993 and February 26, 1993 San
Diego CVSO retained files (other than Medi-Cal claims) one year.
In response to the recent audit the retention of files will be ongoing. The auditor clarified verbally
that Medi-Cal files are the only files that may be purged after 3 years.
(cid:127) To make certain that CVSO personnel who assist and counsel veterans are qualified to provide
assistance, CVSOs should ensure that those lacking accreditation seek it.
RESPONSE: Agree
COMMENT: All employees in San Diego CVSO are accredited pending one person who will
finish the process in June 2000.
*California State Auditor’s comments appear on page 59.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 57
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
58 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
COMMENTS
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From
San Diego County
T
o provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on
San Diego County’s (county) response to our audit report.
The numbers correspond to the numbers we have placed
in the county’s response.
1
The county responded to a recommendation directed to the
Legislature. Although the county’s position is that there should
be local control of revenue for its County Veterans Service
Officer program (CVSO), it is the Legislature’s prerogative to
stipulate how state funds should be used if it chooses to do so.
2
The county refers to a concern over file retention we discuss in the
Scope and Methodology section of the report’s Introduction. It is
important to recognize that it was not the apparent misunder-
standing regarding file retention requirements that prompted our
recommendation that CVSOs ensure that they have established
proper controls over reporting. Instead, as we discuss in the report,
it was our concern that the CVSOs we visited, including the
San Diego CVSO, lack a sufficient quality control process to ensure
the accuracy of the information reported.
Additionally, we agree that the county thought it was following
California Department of Veterans Affairs’ (department) guidance
when it retained certain files only one year. However, the county is
not correct when it states that one of the auditors verbally clarified
that files for the California Medical Assistance (Medi-Cal) program
are “the only files that may be purged after three years.” Rather,
the auditor commented that the terms of the agreement the
department has with the Department of Health Services include
a three-year retention period for Medi-Cal records. Further, the
agreement’s provisions do not pertain to records that the CVSO
maintains for individuals who are not in the Medi-Cal program.
As we reported, we have asked the department to clarify to the
CVSOs its instructions on record retention.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 59
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
60 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
Agency’s comments provided as text only.
The County of Yuba
Office of the Board of Supervisors
215 Fifth Street
Marysville, CA 95901
April 5, 2000
Ms. Mary P. Noble
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capital Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento California 95814
Dear Ms. Noble:
My comments to the recommendations put forth by your auditors are enclosed. I
wish to thank all of those staff members involved with the audit of the Yuba-Sutter
Veterans Service Office. It is my understanding the auditors were professional and
courteous.
Should you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me or
the Yuba-Sutter County Veterans Service Officer personally.
Very truly yours,
(Signed by: Brent Hastey)
Brent Hastey
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
BH:wrc
Enclosures (3)
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 61
Comments to California State Auditor
Dated March 30, 2000
Recommendation: To improve the accuracy of reporting of program information to the California
Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA), all CVSO’s should implement appropriate controls over
their reporting of benefits and savings.
1*
Response: The Yuba-Sutter CVSO will, with the assistance of the Yuba County Human Services
Agency and the Sutter County Social Services Department, report the actual cost savings based
on eligibility to the Board of Supervisors of Yuba and Sutter county on an annual basis. (i.e., if a
veteran receives 400.00 a month in disability compensation and the maximum benefit is 300.00
through Social Services the cost savings is 300.00 to the county and not 400.00, which is currently
being reported.) Please note that the current procedures set forth by CDVA are being fol-
lowed.
Recommendation: CVSO’s should take the following actions to better measure and improve the
effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of the veterans:
(cid:127) Work with the CDVA to develop goals and productivity measures for CVSO’s
(cid:127) Report to their respective counties and CDVA annually their progress in meeting the goals
and productivity measures.
(cid:127) Analyze their own operations and implement practices to improve their operations.
Response:
(cid:127) The Yuba-Sutter CVSO will, in connection with the California Association of County Veterans
Service Officers (CACVSO) and CDVA, discuss and develop goals and productivity measures
for CVSO’s.
(cid:127) The Yuba-Sutter CVSO will report annually to the Human Services Agency Director the
progress in meeting goals and productivity measures.
(cid:127) The Yuba-Sutter CVSO will analyze its own operation, forward its findings to the Human
Services Agency Director and implement practices to improve operations.
Recommendation: To improve the accuracy of reporting of program information to the department,
all CVSO’s should ensure that they have established proper controls over their reporting of
workload data.
2
Response: Although your report discusses the over reliance on a software program to track
reporting of data, the Yuba-Sutter CVSO is confident in the new software program we now have in
place can and will alleviate tracking problems we have encountered in the past.
Recommendation: To make certain that CVSO personnel who assist and counsel veterans are
qualified to provide assistance, CVSO’s should ensure that those lacking accreditation seek it.
Response: The Yuba-Sutter CVSO has a policy in place to have all veterans’ service representa-
tives and County Veterans Service Officers accredited by the department within one year of em-
ployment.
*California State Auditor’s comments appear on page 63.
62 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R
COMMENTS
California State Auditor’s Comments
on the Response From Yuba County
T
o provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on
Yuba County’s (county) response to our audit report. The
numbers correspond to the numbers we have placed in
the county’s response.
1
The county has focused narrowly on the recommendation by
citing only one type of data. As discussed in our report, the
Yuba-Sutter County Veterans Service Officer program (CVSO),
among others, did not have controls in place to ensure benefits
and savings are accurate before they are reported to the California
Department of Veterans Affairs (department). Our concern is
that without a sufficient quality control process in place all data
the CVSO reports to the department may be unreliable. There-
fore, county supervisors and state legislators who receive this
information from the department may make inappropriate
decisions regarding the CVSO program.
2
At the time we visited the Yuba-Sutter CVSO, it prepared all its
calculations and reports manually. Since our visit, the CVSO has
installed the same computer software program we observed in
place at two other CVSOs. Furthermore, the county responded
that its CVSO is confident that the new software program it has
in place will alleviate workload data reporting problems it has
encountered in the past. However, the Yuba-Sutter CVSO should
not place too much reliance on the software program to detect
errors in reporting. As discussed in our report, although we had
been told that the software has an edit to prevent duplicate
entries, we found that information for one award was recorded
twice. Additionally, the software is not designed to catch other
kinds of errors.
C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R 63
cc: Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press
64 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R