VA Organizational Development: Accountability & Leadership
This paper analyzes the organizational challenges facing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a federal agency with roots in post–World War I veterans care. Drawing on the 2015 VA Agency Financial Report and a federal IPERA performance review, the paper identifies key deficiencies in financial oversight, leadership structure, and operational accountability. It proposes concrete solutions—including the appointment of a permanent CFO, elevation of the financial office, and adoption of benchmarking and continual learning practices—and outlines an evaluation plan to measure progress. The paper concludes with reflections on leadership culture as the root cause of systemic underperformance.
- Overview of the Department of Veterans Affairs: History, structure, and budget of the VA
- Organizational Problems: Financial controls failures and compliance gaps
- Proposed Solutions: Permanent CFO and elevated financial leadership
- Evaluation Plan and Accountability Measures: Metrics, oversight, and congressional approval process
- Best Practices for Organizational Change: Benchmarking, accountability culture, continual learning
- Key Takeaways: Leadership, culture, and organizational development lessons
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its analysis in real audit findings and performance reviews, giving recommendations a credible evidentiary basis.
- Moves logically from problem diagnosis to proposed solutions to an evaluation plan, maintaining a clear cause-and-effect chain throughout.
- Connects structural issues (the absent permanent CFO) to cultural issues (lack of accountability), showing that organizational problems operate at multiple levels simultaneously.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied organizational analysis: it translates abstract audit findings into specific, actionable recommendations (e.g., elevating the CFO role, implementing continual learning cycles) and pairs each recommendation with measurable evaluation criteria. This problem–solution–evaluation structure is a hallmark of professional policy and management writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with background on the VA's history and scope, then identifies financial and operational deficiencies. The "Proposed Solutions" section addresses leadership gaps directly. The "Evaluation Plan" section specifies both operational and financial metrics for measuring improvement, including IPERA review outcomes and budget compliance. A "Best Practices" discussion covers accountability culture, benchmarking, and continual learning. A brief reflective conclusion closes the argument and acknowledges real-world political constraints.
Overview of the Department of Veterans Affairs
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a governmental organization with its roots in 1921, when veterans benefits were organized at the federal level following the First World War. The brutal conditions of that war — in which soldiers were exposed to mechanical weaponry, chemical weapons such as mustard gas, and disease-ridden trench warfare — created a substantial need for veterans hospitals. The creation of a federal agency to accommodate this need formed the beginnings of the modern Department of Veterans Affairs (VA.gov, 2016). The Veterans Administration was formally established in 1930, and the 1944 GI Bill subsequently expanded benefits for veterans.
Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs is a branch of the federal government comprising three separate administrations: benefits, health, and cemeteries. The benefits programs for veterans include employment and vocational assistance, home loans, life insurance, disability compensation, pensions, and the GI Bill. The health branch operates over 1,000 health care facilities for veterans, while the cemeteries branch operates 147 national cemeteries. These three branches collectively aim to provide service to veterans of America's military. The VA's total budget stands at $183 billion, of which $116 billion is allocated to the benefits administration and $64 billion to health (2015 VA Agency Financial Report).
Organizational Problems
There are several significant problems within the VA. A financial audit found that the agency has problems with organizational structure at the highest levels of the CFO office, which was determined to lack the necessary controls as mandated by law. There are improper payment rates, and a 2015 IPERA performance review found the agency to be out of compliance with federal laws governing care for veterans. This means the agency is not meeting its stated objectives — the tasks to which it has been mandated by the federal government. There are insufficient controls with respect to compliance, and there may be a direct link between these two failures: not all funds are fully accounted for, and not all tasks for which money has been allocated have been completed.
Compounding the difficulty is that the true and exact nature of the problems is not fully known. Auditors have identified the problems in general terms, but there is a lack of specificity. Without that specificity, it is nearly impossible to develop viable action plans to address them. Identifying specific problems is necessary to determine what specific remedies are required to bring VA performance into alignment with its stated objectives and within the expectations of Congress. Because Congress allocates funding to the VA for the performance of specific tasks, the agency is ultimately accountable to Congress. To remedy its performance issues, the VA must first identify how and why its performance is lagging, and then implement effective solutions to bring about the needed organizational changes.
Proposed Solutions
When there is a lack of accountability and adequate controls in the CFO office, this points to a systemic issue within the organization. A culture that is not conducive to accountability at the second-highest levels of the organization makes it unsurprising that VA operations fall short of the objectives set by Congress. A natural starting point is to examine the leadership of the VA and question whether the right people are in place — but a closer inspection reveals that the organizational structure itself may bear significant responsibility for these shortfalls.
The leadership of the VA consists of a Secretary, a Deputy Secretary (equivalent to a COO), and a Chief of Staff. There is no permanent CFO-equivalent at the highest levels of the organization. The office responsible for finance is currently held by an Interim Assistant Secretary for Management and Interim Chief Financial Officer. Ideally, the CFO would be a permanent appointee — someone who is not serving in a dual capacity and who is a dedicated financial expert. This office should also hold a higher rank within the VA's organizational structure. If financial accountability and the efficient use of funds are genuine problems at the VA, the fact that finance is not treated seriously in the organizational design is doubtless a contributing factor. The VA budget was cut in 2015, making greater operational efficiency essential; yet the organization failed to meet both its operational and financial objectives, indicating that more attention must be paid to oversight.
The first recommendation is therefore to appoint a permanent CFO and to elevate the status of that office. The new CFO should have experience in a comparable role at a high-level government agency and a demonstrated record of success. The current situation — in which the role remains unfilled on a permanent basis — is not acceptable.
The second recommendation is to elevate the status of the financial office within the VA more broadly. At present, the different branches appear to handle much of their own finances independently, but stronger centralized leadership is required to bring the agency back on target operationally and financially. The new CFO and his or her office will need to work closely with the Deputy Secretary to streamline spending, innovate new means of achieving goals with fewer resources, ensure greater transparency in expenditure, and align spending programs more tightly with the organization's strategic and operational objectives.
References
2015 VA Agency Financial Report. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from
VA.gov (2016). Website, various pages. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from http://www.va.gov
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.