Sorry for the mess!

The site is undergoing a massive update. All the content on the site still works but things just might look a little messy and disorganized. Most of the upgrades will probably be don by the end of the month. Thank you for your understanding!

Updated Sep 30, 2024

In This Chapter

  
This chapter contains the following topics:
 
Topic
Topic Name
1
2
3
4
5
Appendix A
 

                         
                                

1.  Purpose

 
 

Introduction

  
This section contains general principles of SOARpurpose, including 

Change Date

  
January 12, 2022

1.C.1.a.  SOAR Defintion

  
A Strategic Oversight and Analysis Review (SOAR) is a formal review  of an organizational element or an operational function of the decision review operations center (DROC). SOARs are a self-audit technique, used as a positive guide for operational analysis and improvement.  

1.C.1.b.  Purpose of a SOAR

  
A researched and well-written SOAR is a valuable management tool for reviewing operations to identify existing or potential problems and propose corrective actions, as well as identify best practices that may be applied to other areas.

1.C.1.c.  Primary Objectives of a SOAR

  
The primary objectives of a SOAR are to:
  • assess the effectiveness and adherence to operational procedures
  • monitor progress toward established goals and objectives pertinent to the subject area 
  • identify problems and recommend corrective actions
  • identify operational procedures and oversight that are not currently included as part of the workload management plan (WMP)
  • assess areas of vulnerability in operational procedures and oversight
  • determine effectiveness in achieving program directives and in meeting Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) priorities, targets, and goals
  • verify records and reports accurately and properly reflect actual operations and results
  • evaluate compliance with manuals, regulations, and other directive material
  • refer recommendations for improvement in operations, policy or other directives, or other action by higher authority, and
  • document a history of operational performance and analysis of performance.

                         
                                

2.  Responsibility, Schedule, and Contol

 
 

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on

Change Date

  
October 1, 2024

1.C.2.a. Management Responsibility

  
The DROC Manager (DROCM) is responsible for the ongoing analysis of the DROC operations, to include SOARs required by this chapter, as well as those required by local DROC policy.
 
Responsibilities include:
  • ensuring SOARs are completed according to this chapter
  • ensuring the depth of analysis is sufficient to identify potential problem areas establish best practices, and
  • ensuring appropriate recommendations are tracked and completed. 

1.C.2.b.    Who May Compete SOARs

  
DROCMs may assign SOARs to any division personnel who are sufficiently experienced in DROC operations and who display analyticlal ablity. Completing SOARs is not limited to supervisory personnel.
 
Consulting with subject matter experts and all levels of management during the SOAR planning, data gathering, and analysis portions is crucial to a successful result.

1.C.2.c.  Frequency of SOARs

  
DROCs must complete each SOAR biannually, during the designated SOAR windows. The two annual SOAR windows are:
  • December to February
  • June to August       
Note: DROCs must submit the Workload Management SOAR annually. If the DROC updates the Workload Management Plan following completion of the Workload Management SOAR, then the DROC must submit a second Workload Management SOAR in the following SOAR window. For example, the DROC submits a WMP SOAR in December, and updates the WMP in January. A revised WMP SOAR will be due during the June-August window.
 
Example: The DROC must draft, submit, and receive concurrence on the SOAR for Claims Processing Operations once during the December to February window and once during the June to August window..
 

1.C.2.d.  Schedule of SOARs

  
The DROCM is responsible for preparing the SOAR schedule prior to the start of each fiscal year. Schedules must align with the frequency requirement set forth in this chapter and must include:  
  • the person(s) responsible for completing the SOAR,
  • the position title of the person responsible for the report,
  • the due date, and
  • a tracker of the dates the completed SOARs were submitted.     
 

1.C.2.e.  Necessity for More Frequent Analysis and/or Data Collection

  
DROCs must conduct SOARs on a schedule that, at a minimum, meets the requirements established in this chapter. However, analysis and data collection may be necessary more frequently than scheduled to determine trends, obtain facts for special reports, or determine quality in specified areas. 
 
It may be necessary to analyze only a segment of an area of review more frequently than scheduled.
      
Example: If the DROC determines local quality reviews and findings are a problem, then this topic should be analyzed more frequently, assessing the effectiveness of recommendations until the issue is resolved. The DROC must retain all findings and discuss the findings in the next regularly scheduled SOAR on the topic.  
 

1.C.2.f.  Extension Requests

  
The SOAR author may submit an extension request to the DRCOM prior to the scheduled due date. The DROCM may grant extensions only within the current SOAR scheduling window. 
 
Note: The DROC must document all extension requests and approvals; extension approvals must be updated on the schedule to indicate the new approved due date. 
      
Example: The SOAR scheduled due date is December 31. The SOAR author submits a request for extension to the DROCM with the reason for extension request on December 1. An extension may be granted by the DROCM within the current scheduling window  to no later than February 28.  
 

1.C.2.g.  Control Log for Recommendations

  
DROCs must maintain a contol log for the completion of SOAR recommendations. The log must include the following:  
  • recommendation(s)
    • action to be completed,
    • evaluative criteria that will be used to measure success,
    • names of individual(s) and/or team(s) responsible for completing the action(s)
  • targeted due date, and
  • actual completion date.

The DROC must maintain control logs for review as part of the associated SOAR for historical purposes. Documentation of the actions taken on the log with actual completion dates will help in monitoring compliance. This documentation is part of the originating SOAR and must be discussed as part of the next scheduled SOAR.       

Reference: For more information on the SOAR schedule, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section C.2.d.

                         
                                

3.  Report Format

 

Introduction

  
This section contains a description of the required report format for SOARs, including

Change Date

  
November 7, 2023

1.C.3.a.  SOAR Format

  
DROCs must use the format discussed in this section to ensure all topics, details, and analysis are contained in the report.
 
Reference: For an example of the required SOAR format, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section C, Appendix A.

1.C.3.b.  Date and Title

  
The DROC must include the date of completion of the SOAR and the title must reflect the required SOAR topic reviewed.    
       
Reference: For SOAR topic requirements, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section C.4.

1.C.3.c.  Scope of Review

  
The scope of review must include, at minimum, a brief overview of the main topics covered, time period covered, and date of review.  
   
Note: The DROC must explain any operational parameters to provide context and clarity, if applicable (e.g., changes during the review  period, a pilot project that took place for three months out of the six-month review period, etc.).

1.C.3.d.  Review or Previous Recommendations

  
The DROC must restate recommendations from the last SOAR report and include actions taken to implement the previous recommendations and the impact of those actions. The DROC must document the success of the implemented recommendations in the SOAR’s findings and analysis sections. 
 
If the DROC did not implement previous recommendations, the DROC must provide an explanation of the mitigating circumstances. The previous recommendation will be continued as a current recommendation in the next SOAR, if supported by the findings and analysis.
   
Reference: For more information on the control log for recommendations, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section C.2.g.    

1.C.3.e.         Current Findings and Analysis

  
The DROC must summarize the data reviewed and provide in-depth analysis of the data in the current findings and analysis section.      
 
All required topics and sub-topics must provide:
  • current facts, findings, and data to adequately address each topic under review 
  • in-depth (root cause) analysis of presented facts, findings, and data, to include
    • analysis comparing the DROC to another station, district, national averages, FY, other review period, etc.
    • identified trends 
    • discussion on identified deficiencies, potential problem areas, outliers, inefficiencies, and/or identified best practices, and
    • results of implemented recommendations/action items of any prior review
Important:
  • Possible data and process review resources include, but are not limited to: Tableau reports, Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition (OBIEE) Reports, Workload and Time Reporting System, Quality Management System, M21-1 and M21-4 procedures, VBA policy or directives, subject matter expert interviews, and must be cited appropriately in this section of the report.
  • The DROC must ensure data is collected and maintained throughout the review period so all relevant data will be available for the SOAR.
  • If existing data reports are not available, DROCs should use a sampling of local cases to conduct a review.
  • When reviewing a process, a mere description of the process is not sufficient. The DROC must include an in-depth analysis of the process and explanation of findings and recommendations.

1.C.3.f.  Conclusion

  
The DROC must discuss any potential issues and/or best practices in the conclusion of the SOAR. 
 
Important: All conclusions should be supported by facts and analysis in the previous sections.

1.C.3.g.         Recommended Improvement Actions

 
The DROC must include recommended actions to remedy any areas of improvement identified by a SOAR in the report. The DROC must justify recommendations by the findings and analysis, which will be supported by data.
 
The DROC must include the following in all recommendations:
  • the action to be completed
  • the party responsible for completing the action
  • the date the action is to be completed, and
  • the evaluative criteria used to measure success.

Example: On the first of each month the Management Analyst who is responsible for updating the Workforce Information Tool (WIT) will meet with the Training Manager who is responsible for maintaining specialized processor TMS cohorts to ensure that the designations match across systems. Success will be measured by being 100% compliant with M21-5, Chapter 1, Section A.3.f following each meeting.

 Reference:  For more information on the contol log for recommendations, see M21-5, Chapter 1, Section C.2.g.   

1.C.3.h.         Signature Requirements and Approval of SOARs

  
The DROC must include the following signatures and approvals on each SOAR report:
  • the name and title of the SOAR author,
  • the date completed,
  • approval signature by the DROCM or designee, and
  • concurrence signature by the Director or designee.
The DROC must capture and digitally save all signatures and dates to the electronic document.  

                         
                                

4.  SOAR Topic Requirements

 
 

Introduction

  
This section contains information on topics that must be covered in the required SOARs biannually during the designated SOAR windows, including

Change Date

  
October 1, 2024

1.C.4.a.  Content of SOARs

  
DROCs must cover all related factors outlined in each SOAR below on a biannaul basis.
 
Notes:
  • The areas for review listed below, indicate the minimum areas SOARs should include.
  • DROC or Regional Office (RO) management may expand the areas of consideration to ensure a thorough analysis is conducted in each process reviewed.
 
Important: Each analysis must identify any areas for improvement drawn from assumptions and predictions based on the findings and analysis. The DROC must explain all assumptions and predictions and provide rationale that is clearly outlined and supported by quantitative and/or qualitative data (i.e., include sample reviews with results where applicable).

1.C.4.b.  SOAR for Claims Processing Operations

  
 The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the Claims Processing Operations SOAR:
  • EP 600 (due process) processing
    • ADP
    • cases pending over 65 days
  • attorney fee processing:
    • review of fee releases pending more than 65 days
  • higher-level review (HLR) difference of opinion (DoO) and duty to assist (DTA) error identification and subsequent end product creation
  • HLR cancellations
    • ​​​​​​​analysis and review of a sample of 10 HLR cancellations. Corrective action is required for any identified compliance errors.
  • informal conferences
    • DROC process for scheduling informal conferences to include routing of MST, TBI, and ALS to designated specialized processors (to include all scheduling applications)
  • effectuating Board decisions
    • DROC process
  • under/overpayments analysis oversight and compliance of controls to minimize compensation benefit under/overpayments (use of special issue) to include elections, waivers, and recoupments, including
    • ​​​​​​​review a sample of AMA and legacy appeals
    • review process for adding special issue
  • 2nd signature process (Admin Decisions and $40K) including character of discharge (COD) determinations, including
    • ​​​​​​​review process and routing procedures
    • review who is responsible for signature
References: For more information on

1.C.4.c.  SOAR for Local Quality

  
The DROC must include a review  and analysis of the following in the local quality SOAR:    
  • clear and unmistakable errors (CUE) caused by DROC
  • Stegall remands, if applicable
    • error trends to include reasons
    • deferral trends and mitigation process
  • legacy deferrals and rework of legacy remands
    • error trends to include reasons
    • deferral trends and mitigation process
  • rework of Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) remands and deferrals
    • error trends to include reasons
    • trends and mitigation process
  • individual quality reviews (IQR)
    • process for tracking corrective action
    • process for recording and communicating untimely error corrections in monthly performance meeting with employee to count towards “timeliness” element of standards
  • in-process reviews (IPR)
    • process for selecting IPR categories
    • process for selecting cases
    • process for communicating IPR errors to employee
    • process for tracking corrective action
    • process for recording and communicating untimely error corrections in monthly performance meeting with employee to count towards “timeliness” element of standards
  • error overturn rate
References: For more information on

1.C.4.d.  SOAR for Workload Management 

  
The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the workload management SOAR:
  • processing of work assignments:
    • effectiveness of local Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) rules to include priority claims
  • process for reviewing outliers (TIQ, TEC, ADP, etc.)
  • Do Not Recall indicators
    • proper use
  • process for reviewing WMP to ensure oversight and effectiveness
References: For more information on

1.C.4.e.         SOAR for Specialized Processing

  
The DROC must include a review and analysis of the following in the specialized processor SOAR:
  • review of specialized processors for MST, TBI, and ALS, to include:
    • all training requirements and quality standards are met
    • ensuring the required number of designated processors are met and accurately reflected in the Workforce Information Tool (WIT)
    • ensuring WIT specialized processor designations match Talent Management System (TMS) training assignments
  • review process of 2nd signatures for MST, TBI, and ALS, to include:
    • maintenance of required specialized processor log
    • issuance and maintenance of release memoranda for each claims processor for each specialized designation
  • compliance and use of the Special Mission Memos and Case Review Log Repository
  • how specialized claims are disseminated and processed
    • Review of proper claim attributes usage
    • Routing effectiveness
    • Effectiveness of communication
  • analysis and review of a minimum of 10 each ALS, TBI, and MST cases to ensure completion by specialized processors designated in the WIT at the time the action was completed. Corrective action for signature is required for any identified compliance errors.

Note: If less than 10 cases exist for any of these special mission categories, then all cases must be reviewed during the SOAR window.

References: For more information on
 

 

1.C.4.f.         Optional Ad-Hoc Review

  
The Office of Administrative Review (OAR) reserves the right to provide the DROC with a designated topic for ad-hoc review or allow the DROCM or RO leadership to self-designate topic(s) as needs are identified. The DROC must include a review and analysis of the topic/sub-topics designated in the ad-hoc review. Please note, the Ad-Hoc Review SOAR is optional for the DROCs to complete unless otherwise assigned by OAR.
 
Suggested topics for the ad-hoc review include:
  • availability rates and excluded time
  • organizational structure
    • capacity/team structure/staffing ratios
  • training

5.  Retention

 

Introduction

  
This topic contains information on SOAR retention, including: 

Change Date

  
 January 12, 2022

1.C.5.a.  SOAR Retention

  
DROCs must retain a copy of the SOAR, the log of control for recommendations, and related working documents in an electronic folder specific to the topic.

1.C.5.b.  Disposition of Reports and Material 

  
 
DROCs must dispose of these reports and related material in accordance with RCS VB-1, part I, item number 13-098.000.

                    
                                

Appendix A.  Required SOAR Format

 
 

Introduction

  
This topic contains a sample SOAR report.

Change Date

  
January 12, 2022

a. Required SOAR Format

  

DROCs must use the required SOAR format below for all SOAR reports. 

Date:

Title:

Scope of Review: (This section includes a brief overview of main topics covered, time period covered and date of review.)

Previous Review of Recommendations/Actions: (Discuss the recommendations made on the previous SOAR, actions taken towards implementing recommendations, and impact of those actions.)    

Current Findings/Analysis: (Discuss current facts, findings, and relative comparisons of each required topic and sub-topic. Evaluate each area under review, compare findings with established program requirements or guidelines and specify any deficiency, inefficiency, or potential areas for improvement and/or areas of best practices.)

Conclusion: (Provide brief conclusion of any identified deficiencies, inefficiencies, or potential problem areas and/or areas of best practices. These comments will be followed by recommendations for improvement or other process improvement ideas for District/Nation.)

Recommendations: (Provide proposed actions to correct inefficiencies or provide operational improvements locally, within District and/or nation.)

 

                                                                                                                       

Prepared by                                                                   Date

 

                                                                                                                       

Approved by                                                                  Date

 

                                                                                                                       

Concurred by                                                                 Date