The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has a history of measuring success by the amount of money disbursed and the number of veterans processed, rather than by veterans’ experiences and outcomes. After nearly two decades working in veterans’ education policy, I have seen that pattern repeat itself across multiple administrations and programs.
Within VA, the metrics that drive internal conversations are often budget obligations, claims processed, and dollars delivered. While those are relevant, the issues that actually matter to veterans are far simpler: Did my housing allowance come on time? Did my school deliver a high-quality education? Did this credential really improve my life?
Within VA, the metrics that drive internal conversations are often budget obligations, claims processed, and dollars delivered. While those are relevant, the issues that actually matter to veterans are far simpler: Did my housing allowance come on time? Did my school deliver a high-quality education? Did this credential really improve my life?
When VA’s efforts to modernize its computer systems falter, as occurred this past fall with a widely reported failure to deliver GI Bill payments, VA’s explanations focus on technicalities, rather than the impact on veterans.
For example, at a congressional hearing earlier this year, VA officials shared, “To date, the program has been exceptionally successful in meeting mission milestones to maximize performance through an updated processing platform.” In contrast, we testified that what VA misses is the human reality of veterans, survivors and dependents who were left short on rent, utilities and groceries.
The current dynamic has allowed too many predatory or financially unstable institutions to rely heavily on GI Bill funds, even as warning signs mounted. House of Prayer, Ashford University, ITT Technical Institute and Colorado Technical University are not strangers in oversight debates. These schools are reminders that volume is not the same as value.
Millions of dollars in GI Bill funds flowed to institutions that later collapsed, faced sanctions, or left students with credits that did not transfer to reputable schools. Veterans lost time they cannot get back, and taxpayers supported programs that delivered no measurable results. Despite this, VA’s definition of success has remained unchanged, as it continues to focus on dollars disbursed and enrollments counted.
Part of this challenge lies in statute. Under current law, a school might be found with serious fraud violations or financial instability and still retain access to GI Bill dollars if the violation does not fall within the currently limited framework.
A commonsense system would not operate that way. If a university, school or training program seeks access to GI Bill dollars, it should meet baseline standards that reflect both fiscal responsibility and educational integrity; it’s important to remember that veteran benefits are taxpayer-funded and earned through military service and sacrifice. Veterans should have at least the same advantages as other students who rely on Department of Education funds.
That means screening a school’s financial stability before approval to ensure abrupt closures do not leave veterans stranded. It means requiring a school to have adequate administrative capacity to accurately manage veterans’ benefits and communicate clearly with students. It means limiting excessive administrative spending at colleges. Current federal policy provides a template for what it means to be fiscally conservative with taxpayer-funded programs, often defaulting to a standard 10% overhead rate.
It also means expecting a demonstrated track record of student outcomes as a condition of continued participation in Title 38 programs. Veterans should be able to see, in plain language on VA’s online GI Bill tool, whether graduates complete their programs and find employment in relevant fields that justify the investment of time and hard-earned benefits. Recruiters who enroll veterans should operate under a clear fiduciary obligation to tell the truth.
Veterans did not earn these benefits to become a revenue stream for unstable or predatory programs. They earned them to build stable futures, and VA’s policies and metrics should change to reflect that.
Read the full article at Stars and Stripes here.