[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE'S BUDGET AND STATE GRANT
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-869 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
JEFF DENHAM, California JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana
Vacancy
Vacancy
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JEFF DENHAM, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
March 3, 2011
Page
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State
Grant
Program........................................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman...................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman...................... 49
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member.................. 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Braley..................... 50
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson, Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service........... 4
Prepared statement of Mr. Jefferson.......................... 50
______
American Legion, Robert W. Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission............................................ 35
Prepared statement of Mr. Madden............................. 75
Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National
Legislative Director........................................... 32
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 68
National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Bonnie Elsey,
President-Elect, and Senior Administrative Officer, Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development.............. 23
Prepared statement of Ms. Elsey.............................. 57
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Raymond C. Kelley,
Director, National Legislative Service......................... 33
Prepared statement of Mr. Kelley............................. 72
Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive
Director for Policy and Government Affairs..................... 36
Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman............................ 78
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
American Veterans (AMVETS), Christina M. Roof, National Acting
Legislative Director, statement................................ 80
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson, Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor,
letter dated March 7, 2011, and DoL's responses............ 85
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Bonnie Elsey, President-Elect, National Association of
State Workforce Agencies, and Senior Administrative
Officer, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, letter dated March 7, 2011, and NASWA's
responses.................................................. 88
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans, letter dated March 7, 2011, and
DAV's responses............................................ 90
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Raymond C. Kelley, Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, letter dated
March 7, 2011, and VFW responses........................... 94
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Robert W. Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, American Legion, letter dated March 7, 2011,
and American Legion's responses............................ 95
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and
Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America, letter
dated March 7, 2011. [NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED]............ 97
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
SERVICE'S BUDGET AND STATE
GRANT PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stutzman, Bilirakis, Johnson,
Huelskamp, Denham, Braley, and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN
Mr. Stutzman. Good morning. Thanks to everybody for being
here this morning and I am looking forward to our first hearing
of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee.
I am Marlin Stutzman. It is a privilege to be chairing this
Committee this morning and I am also looking forward to working
with Mr. Braley as well as other Committee Members.
I think we will just go ahead and get started and so we can
get right into the testimony.
So we are here today to examine the fiscal year 2012 budget
for the U.S. Department of Labor's (DoL's) Veterans' Employment
and Training Service, better know in the veteran's community as
VETS.
It is no secret that veterans are facing difficult times
finding and retaining good-paying jobs. Unemployment rates for
veterans in some age groups significantly exceed the rates for
nonveterans of the same age. I just do not believe that is
right.
I am confident that the distinguished Ranking Member shares
that view and I intend to work with Mr. Braley in a bipartisan
manner to improve employment opportunities for veterans.
Interestingly, job vacancies posted online rose by 438,000
in January to nearly 4.3 million according to the Conference
Board, so there are literally millions of jobs looking for
qualified workers. So that begs me to ask whether veterans have
the right skills for today's job market and the answer to that
may be the key to reducing veteran unemployment rates.
The media focuses on the 15.2 percent unemployment rate
among veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but in
terms of sheer numbers, older veterans are facing rates of
unemployment that often exceeds their nonveteran peers.
For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) latest
data shows that 725,000 or 63 percent of the 1,135,000
unemployed vets are 35 to 64 years old. Unfortunately, those
veterans have little or no access to veterans' education,
training, or retraining programs. They are also the group that
tends to have the highest financial obligations like mortgages
and paying for their children's education.
We are all aware of the financial crisis facing this
Nation, which means we must redouble our efforts to make best
use of the funds available to us. That means that what is the
best use of the $261 million the President has requested for
the Veterans' Employment and Training Service in fiscal year
2012.
How do we increase the skills unemployed veterans can offer
to the job market and then what is the best way to match
veteran qualified job seekers with the right job?
The VETS' budget submission is refreshingly frank in
addressing the State Grant Program. I quote, ``The program
clearly was not fulfilling its mandated role,'' end quote. And
I am eager to hear how VETS proposes to fix their largest
program whereas a veteran in Indiana should be able to receive
the same level of services that a veteran in New York and it is
clear that this is not currently happening.
I would also recognize President Obama's initiative to
increase the number of veterans employed by the Federal
Government. Today veterans are approximately 25 percent of the
Federal workforce, but, unfortunately, outside of the VA and
the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), most agencies fall far
short of employing a significant number of veterans.
I wish the President every success in this program and I am
sure each of the Members here will call upon the entire Federal
Government to place greater emphasis on hiring veterans.
But I would also note that the private sector offers far
more employment opportunities as evidenced by the Conference
Board's data.
Finally, I welcome today's witnesses, and I yield to the
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Braley, after which we will
hear from the first panel.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman appears on p. 4
9.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF BRUCE L. BRALEY
Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, I want to first begin by
congratulating you on your Chairmanship and holding your first
hearing on a topic that should be near and dear to the heart of
every American. And I look forward to working with you because
we all know that when it comes to taking care of our veterans,
there is no such thing as partisanship. And I think this is
going to be a wonderful opportunity for us to talk about the
important economic issues that face our veterans.
I was reminded of that a week ago, which was the 61st
anniversary of when my father landed on Iwo Jima as a young 18-
year-old Marine from Iowa. And if we could address the
challenges of that massive demobilization and all of the
economic issues we faced after World War II, I am confident
that if we work together in a nonpartisan way, we can do a lot
with this Committee to expand economic opportunities for
veterans.
As you all know, we are working hard in Congress to try to
balance our budget and reduce the deficit, at the same time
providing much needed services and employment opportunities for
veterans. And this hearing is going to provide us with an
opportunity to review the U.S. Department of Labor VETS' budget
request for fiscal year 2012 and funding for the Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives (LVER) Program through State Grant
programs.
VETS oversees six major employment related initiatives for
veterans including Jobs for Veterans State Grants, Transition
Assistance Program, Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program
(HVRP), Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), National
Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute, and the
Federal Management.
And I look forward to learning more about how these
programs will remain fully operational and effective with the
new budget request. I am also interested in learning more about
the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and the Homeless
Veterans' Reintegration Program initiatives as these two had a
budget request increase for fiscal year 2012.
I know that our distinguished panelists will highlight some
of the deficiencies of the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
Specialists and the Local Veterans' Employment Representatives
Program. And I also look forward to hearing their
recommendations on how we can improve these services while
still keeping a good budget.
The main purpose of DVOPs and LVERs is to provide
employment services to veterans to help relieve the high
unemployment rate among veterans. We should do everything we
can to ease the transition of veterans from the military to the
civilian world and this hearing is not just about those
problems, but about assessing the effectiveness of these
programs.
And I thank you for your time and your willingness to come
share your thoughts and ideas with us.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on p.
50.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
And I should say this. If you do come to see either one,
Mr. Braley or myself, in our offices, you will not have to walk
very far since we are next door to each other. And so I am
delighted to work with him.
First of all, I would like to welcome our Assistant
Secretary of Labor for the Veterans' Employment and Training
(ASVET), the Honorable Ray Jefferson. Secretary Jefferson's
biography is one of service to the Nation and its veterans. And
in his current capacity as the ASVET, I believe he brings with
him new thinking and a forward-looking approach to solving the
problems facing our unemployed veterans.
Mr. Secretary, it was good to visit with you yesterday, and
the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND M. JEFFERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
Mr. Jefferson. All right, sir. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, Members of the
Committee, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity
to testify about what we are doing at VETS and specifically
with the Jobs for Veterans' State Grant Program and the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request.
I do ask that my full written testimony be included as part
of the record.
VETS proudly serves veterans and transitioning
servicemembers. We do three primary responsibilities. One,
preparing them for meaningful and successful careers; two,
providing access to those careers; and, three, protecting their
employment rights.
As an agency, we have five overarching goals.
The first is to serve as a national focal point for
veterans' employment.
The second is to increase engagement with employers and
particularly the private sector.
The third is to help servicemembers transition seamlessly.
The fourth is to boost the impact of Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
And the fifth is to invest in our team members so that they
can maximize their performance into a potential.
Let me now turn to the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
(JVSG) Program or the State Grants Program. You asked me a
series of questions. All of those are in my written testimony,
but let me give you a succinct overview of what I see as five
primary ways to improve the State Grants Program.
Number one, we want to rapidly obtain pertinent feedback
from the people delivering services. This program was created
in its current form in 2002 and there has not been a single
internal assessment since then.
So all of my State directors are meeting with all of the
State veterans' coordinators to get feedback on eight specific
areas.
One, what is working well.
Two, how would you rate the program's current level of
success.
Three, how would you rate the support you receive from the
one-stops.
Four, what are the areas for the improvement.
Five, what policy changes would you recommend.
Six, how can VETS assist the State in achieving better
outcomes.
Seven, how would you rate the LVERs' overall effectiveness
in doing outreach.
And, eight, how helpful would it be for VETS to assist
LVERs in increasing the employment opportunities that they have
to provide to veterans.
The second major opportunity for improvement is a community
of practice. This is a best practice to get practitioners to
maximize their performance and their impact. A great example is
the U.S. Army's http://companycommand.com that was created out
of Iraq and Afghanistan. This will allow DVOPs and LVERs to
post questions and topics they need help with and also to share
best practices.
Today there is no way for a DVOP in Iowa to share best
practices with a DVOP in Indiana or Illinois nor a DVOP in
Florida with a DVOP in Hawaii. So we need to fix that.
Number three, getting DVOPs and LVERs trained within
prescribed time periods. Now, under the old time frame of 3
years, 99 percent of the individuals have been trained on time.
I am looking forward to the new time frame of 18 months to get
people trained up as quickly as possible.
We presently have 1 percent of all DVOPs and LVERs who have
not been trained on time. That is 24 individuals, and we are
going to deep dive into what are the specific circumstances in
those 24 cases.
Opportunity number four, analyzing the root causes of the
administrative overhead. Over 50 States have admin overhead in
excess of 30 percent. We want to determine the root causes and
work with them with the goal of reducing that admin overhead.
And, finally, integrating the LVERs into our new employer
outreach initiatives with the Society for Human Resource
Management and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Turning now to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
request, we have requested approximately $261 million, an
increase of $5 million over fiscal year 2010. This supports
increased participation tapped by the Guard and Reserve as well
as additional employment service grants for homeless veterans
and Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program.
We have six specific budget activities. I will take them
one at a time.
In terms of JVSG, we have the same level of effort. We
expect this to support 1,146 DVOPs, 971 LVERs, and to serve
624,000 veterans. Last year, the JVSG Program bottom line
helped 200,000 veterans find jobs.
TAP, we have an increase of $2 million. This reflects the
increase in demand in services by the Guard and Reserve,
especially the retiring active Guard and Reserve members, as
well as participation in the Yellow Ribbon programs.
In HVRP, we have an increase of $3 million. This is for 11
grants that will serve an additional 1,700 veterans.
At VWIP, our Green Jobs Training Program, we are going to
maintain the same level of effort. We will also maintain the
same level of effort for the National Veterans' Training
Institute (NVTI), which does the training for Federal staff,
DVOPs, LVERs, and also for Federal management and maintain the
same level of effort.
As I move to conclusion, I will say a priority for us this
year is to refocus the DVOP and LVER Programs. Veterans have
priority of service in all Labor Department employment training
and programs. Of course, the one-stops are included in that.
However, over time, DVOPs and LVERs have merged their
duties. We want DVOPs to focus exclusively on providing
intensive case management and intensive services to disabled
veterans and LVERs to do the same in terms of focusing on
employer outreach. And we want to engage them with our State
directors to increase the employment opportunities they have.
We are working with urgency and innovation. We look forward
to working with all Members of the Committee and I stand ready
for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jefferson appears on p. 50.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I will begin the questioning and then we will recognize the
Ranking Member and our other Members alternating in order of
arrival.
First of all, in your budget submission, you state that you
believe that the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program is
clearly not fulfilling its mandated role.
What steps are you going to undertake in fiscal year 2012
to address this issue and do you intend legislation from
Congress to rectify the situation?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes. So I believe that for the programs, we
are approaching them with a lens towards how can they be
improved, what are the best practices, and how we benchmark.
So the first thing we are doing right now is to get timely,
accurate feedback. There has not been an internal assessment
done. So I want to make some information database decisions as
to how to improve the program. So that is the outline
structured conversations, which are happening right now.
We have also proposed a new rule, which it is a performance
threshold and that performance threshold will be the average of
the previous year's entered employment rate. And so any State
that does not meet 90 percent of that performance metric, we
will engage with them in a conversation leading potentially to
a corrective action plan to get that performance improved.
So we are developing new metrics. We are getting data and
then we are also going to implement a community of practices I
spoke about, work to reduce the administrative overhead, and
engage the LVERs in our effective employer outreach
initiatives. We used to just serve one employer at a time. Now
I am meeting with hundreds of employers at a time through our
new partnerships.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you foresee then that sharing best
practices between States, is that part of the objective here
for you and what plan do you have to meet that goal?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. Sir, that is absolutely a key part
of our strategy going forward. The U.S. Army has prototyped a
best practice, something called the community of practice. It
was a Harvard business review, a breakthrough idea of 2006, the
U.S. Army's http://companycommand.com. We are going to model
our online community of practice on that.
Bottom line, if there is best practices happening in
Florida or Indiana or Iowa or California, all DVOPs and LVERs
should know those and be implementing them. And that is not
happening now. And so we need to get that fixed.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. What are the new metrics? You had
mentioned new metrics. What are those?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. So we have a regulation that we
are proposing and that regulation is going to look at all the
performance of all of the States, territories as well, for the
last year. It takes the average. And then that will be the
metric by which all States are required to meet or exceed that
average. So it is a beginning.
If the State does not meet 90 percent of that, we then
begin working with them to determine the root causes and then
what are the actions that we should take, whether it is
training, whether it is sharing best practices, whether it is a
corrective action plan, to get them to exceed.
And that is something that we have just, I believe,
communicated that to Congress. So that was a late-breaking
development that we have out of VETS, that new metric.
Mr. Stutzman. And do you foresee Congress needing to craft
legislation anywhere for giving you----
Mr. Jefferson. Right now, sir, we have tremendous support.
I think you will hear from the veterans service organizations
(VSOs) that they also are in favor of increased metrics and
standards. So I believe that this is one where this is strong
alignment. We are just trying to move as urgently as possible.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Then finally, what are your thoughts on
taking the $165 million requested for the State Grant Program
and using this funding for a program to fund direct training
services for unemployment veterans?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I believe that the way that we are
going to best serve veterans, the way that we are going to make
sure that over 200,000 veterans continue to find jobs every
year is by taking the program, which right now is, you know,
over 8-years old and bringing innovation into it.
You know, working with disabled veterans one on one is
something that we know they find incredibly valuable, but we
want to bring more best practices to how we do that, more
employment opportunities that we can offer them. And I believe
innovating within the current program is how we are going to
best serve veterans, not taking all of that money and applying
it in an entirely new context.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you about the best
practices.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Braley. My experience is that human nature being what
it is, most people believe their practice----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. Is the best practice.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley. So who makes the determination of what
constitutes a best practice for the purpose of being shared
through this system that other people can model their behavior
on?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes. Sir, great question. And we are aware
that people often feel the way that they are approaching things
is oftentimes the best, but that is not the reality.
So we are going to look at the performance of every State,
current performance, historical performance, and look at where
we are getting the absolute best results and then root cause
and deep dive into that. And then those will be what we pool.
It is best practices proven by results in veterans' lives.
Mr. Braley. And then will there be built into that process
a follow-up mechanism to make sure that that remains the best
practice going forward?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. We want to be a continually
learning organization. And when we had the privilege of
meeting, I spoke about that as our new culture. So assessing,
innovating, implementing, and then continuing that continual
learning and improvement loop.
Mr. Braley. Great. I want to talk about one of the items
you mentioned in the budget request that was part of the
justification for the increase.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Braley. And that was support of the DoD's goal of
increased participation in the National Guard and Reserve
component.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley. And we talked about that yesterday and the fact
that there are currently 3,500 members of the Iowa National
Guard on active duty in Afghanistan.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Braley. And one of the things we know is that in an era
of high unemployment, the pressure on those employers to even
stay in existence let alone keep----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. Positions open for Guard and
Reserve members is intensive. So can you tell us a little bit
more about why that additional budget request is so important
at this time?
Mr. Jefferson. Sure. Sir, I believe the answer relates to
what was within your question, which is that the Guard and
Reserve members and their commanders are realizing that in this
economic condition, you know, now more than in recent years--or
I would say we are at a reflection point where preparation is
vitally important.
So we are doing three things right now to better serve
Guard and Reserve members. One, we have taken the TAP Program.
We have broken it down to modules. And we have told Guard and
Reserve commanders that we are committed to providing at any
time and anywhere that you want us to to meet demobilization
schedules.
And there is going to be always three core components,
labor market information, USERRA information, and one-stop
career information.
Number two, we are working closely with the Yellow Ribbon
Program. We have also made the commitment to provide this at
30-, 60-, and 90-day Yellow Ribbon programs any time, anywhere
Guard and Reserve commanders request it.
Third, our DVOPs are always participating in demobilization
planning with the rear echelon units, the stay behind units or
demobilizing units.
And I will also say that we have a tremendous relationship
with the Executive Director of the Guard and Reserve, Ron
Young, and we are looking at how we can take his 4,700
volunteers and connect them to a greater extent to our State
directors and the DVOPs and LVERs.
Mr. Braley. One of the concerns that we frequently have to
deal with is the practice of erecting silos in Federal
agencies.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Braley. And there is a lot of common interest between
your department and the Small Business Administration (SBA)----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. Which has veterans' assistance in
establishing small businesses, which is also part of economic
development.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley. Can you tell us what your agency is doing to
try to break down some of those barriers, eliminate duplication
of services, and use the combined resources of those two
agencies----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. To help veterans who want to look
at self-employment----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. As an opportunity?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes. Sir, what you are talking about is one
of our five aspirations serving as a national focal point for
veterans' employment.
We literally go around to DoD, VA, SBA, Commerce and figure
out what is everyone doing and how could we do it better
together more synergistically and eliminate redundancy.
Specifically, we are working with Marie Johns, the Deputy
for SBA, as part of the Small Business Task Force. I have a
personal appreciation for the importance of entrepreneurship.
We are creating a new module for entrepreneurship in TAP. There
will be a primary point of access to entrepreneurship of
services, resources, support, and I will also use the word
inspiration.
So we are bringing that into TAP. And then the new online
TAP platform that we spoke about, component five, is something
that entrepreneurs can use to retool, retrain, and up-skill
their team members at no charge if they are a veteran.
Mr. Braley. And before my time runs out, Mr. Secretary,
does your department have available resources so that when
there are veterans' conferences in individual districts, you
have people who can come out into the field and be part of
explaining the services that are provided and serve as a
gateway to getting more people
aware of what can be accomplished through the use of your agency
?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, absolutely. We have State directors in
every State. We have roughly 200 and, you know, 30 teams
members. And one of the things which we are very passionate
about doing is getting into the community, being at events, and
communicating what we do, the value of hiring veterans and how
to find and hire veterans and access our programs.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
Mr. Huelskamp.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here this morning.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us. I had a
couple areas of questions I would be interested in.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp. First of all, are there any particular job
sectors where veterans are having a tougher time than others in
finding employment?
Mr. Jefferson. Sure. Sir, we are creating a body of work
that will be part of our new Transition Assistance Program
called Where the Jobs are Now. And as a part of that, we will
be providing current information, not just on where the jobs
are now, but where the trends have increased and where the
trends have decreased.
So there is not a specific industry that I would quote
right now, but we are creating a body of work that all veterans
and transitioning service will have access to that will give
them that information.
Mr. Huelskamp. Is that not available elsewhere in the
Department of Labor?
Mr. Jefferson. There is information, but there is not a
venue right now to bring that information easily to veterans.
We do have labor market information in the current TAP Program,
but we believe that the manner in which that information is
communicated and the content can be increased which is why as
we have our new statement of objectives, one of them is a much
more detailed, much more comprehensive look at what the future
trends are because, as you know, many of the veterans, they
develop a career plan, they are executing the plan, they get to
the end of it, and those jobs are no longer there which is one
of the reasons we are emphasizing green economy jobs.
Mr. Huelskamp. A followup on that. So the information is
available to nonveterans or to nobody at all as far as----
Mr. Jefferson. No, sir. There is labor market information
that is part of the TAP Program right now, but we want to
improve that information as we re-engineer the TAP Program.
Mr. Huelskamp. My question is, in the Department of Labor--
--
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. Is the information more
available to nonveterans?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, there is labor
market information available at the Department of Labor.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. Again, particularly for veterans
versus nonveterans----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. Are we providing as good as
information to nonveterans and veterans equally or do we----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. Still have a problem with
veterans?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. We are providing information to
veterans and nonveterans equally. Veterans also have priority
of service into one-stops. So all the information that we have
is provided equally. I apologize for misunderstanding the
question.
Mr. Huelskamp. No. Probably the questioner was----
Mr. Jefferson. No.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. The problem here. Second
question would be rural veterans----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. In particular. You do mention
it in your testimony.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Huelskamp. In a couple words, tell me what is happening
there and what your initiatives are.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. Well, sir, 17 percent of all
Americans live in rural America. When we start looking at rural
veterans, that number goes up to 37 percent. So we realize that
veterans in rural America are under-served.
We have launched a pilot program in Washington State where
we are able to contact all rural veterans, ask them if they
need employment services or information on health services or
education. We have a 98 percent participation rate. This is a
real success we are very excited about. And so it is a pilot
where we are doing best practices and doing proof of concept on
that pilot.
Mr. Huelskamp. And how are you providing the services?
Mr. Jefferson. Very innovatively. We have a small group
that has trained a large group of veteran volunteers. Then we
access the veteran contact information data that the State
government has. We call or e-mail veterans. If we have wrong
contact information, we get the correct information, ask them
if they would like one-on-one service and we can literally get
boots on the ground at their door for the first time. But we
leverage volunteers in an innovative model of a train-the-
trainer approach.
Mr. Huelskamp. And how far do folks go to provide the
services?
Mr. Jefferson. We actually go right to their door, sir.
This is a success. We are getting tremendous feedback. It has
exceeded the expectations that we have for it.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. I appreciate that. I come from rural
western Kansas and trying to find trainers is----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. A little bit of a difficulty.
How far are trainers going then or the folks that are meeting
at the door?
Mr. Jefferson. Wherever the veterans in rural America are,
sir. We are leveraging veteran volunteers in rural America. So
they are either in or around the communities.
Mr. Huelskamp. Are you using any technology then or you
actually go to the door?
Mr. Jefferson. Well, I would have to re-look if we are
leveraging technology to the greatest extent. But the simple
model is we are contacting them by phone or e-mail. If we do
not have contact information, we look at that local area to see
how we can get information.
Ninety-eight percent are saying, yes, I want a meeting and
then we have our volunteers actually there working with them
one on one. Here is how you access employment services. Here is
what you are eligible for. Oh, you need health, not employment,
here is how you access the health services, working with the VA
on that and the other State government resources.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My office would
appreciate some more information on the pilot program----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp [continuing]. In Washington State.
Mr. Jefferson. And it was a severe shock that nothing like
that existed when we came in. So we had realized a gap and we
stepped into it with a solution.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The DoL subsequently had a conference call with
Congressman Huelskamp's staff on March 7, 2011, and provided
staff everything they had on the pilot program in Washington
State.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
I have a quick question.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. If a veteran goes in to file unemployment, is
there any way that we can identify or notify that veteran of
your programs or what is available to them or do they just kind
of fall into the----
Mr. Jefferson. We are trying to do that, sir. The idea that
we had was a veteran files unemployment. When he or she gets
the unemployment check, can we have information right there,
you know, when they receive that hard copy check talking about
like our Job Corps pilot for the youngest veterans.
I do not have an answer yet. It is a question that we are
trying to work and see if we can get an answer to. You know, is
it possible, we are looking into that.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. All right. Very good. I think that
would be an excellent way----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. It is a great delivery mechanism.
Mr. Stutzman. Absolutely. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to
congratulate on assuming the Chairmanship. Of all the
Committees you could have chosen to serve on, you picked here
for a reason. It says a lot about you.
And, Mr. Ranking Member, I know your commitment to veterans
and your family's history of sacrifice to this country. I am
very proud to have you there.
So thank you both for that.
And, Assistant Secretary Jefferson, there is no one else I
would rather have in this job than you. Your service to this
country and your selfless service to your own colleagues at a
time of danger is well-known. And I am glad to have you there.
I think you are working incredibly hard to make sure that
these programs are there. I think the question I want to get at
and I am sure my friends across the aisle here agree with me,
government is not the solution to all this. It is the
employers----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. To a certain degree.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz. And we are talking about all the things that we
can do----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Which I think are good at preparing
them. But several weeks ago, we saw you can have the best laid
plans and intentions, but the Servicemember Civil Relief Act
(SCRA) fell through because the private-sector employers were
not honoring it.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz. So my question to you is, and I say this because
I think our employers are doing a heroic job----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Of hiring veterans, making the
sacrifice necessary, small employers especially. There are
cases where they may lose two or three Guardsmen to a
deployment or local police department is the same thing.
So my question to you is, are we doing a good enough job
educating on that side? Does USERRA work? Are we getting the
information out? Are we bringing those folks in to work with us
and say----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. And say here is how you crosswalk--
--
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Military experience into the private
sector, here is what you can do for us so the minute they walk
out the door, we are going to hire them at IBM, we are going to
hire them wherever? Could you speak to that?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I would love to because you are talking
about a topic that I am very passionate about. And when I came
on board, there was a huge opportunity for improvement.
Let me break this down to three things. Let me first talk
about engagement with employers. Let me talk about
communicating the value of hiring, the message, and changing
the cultural conversation, and then I will finish with USERRA.
First of all, we were meeting with employers one at a time.
One point one million veterans unemployed in January and we are
meeting with them one at a time. That had to stop. We have two
pilots which are going on right now, the first one with the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
We realized that there is tremendous alignment on serving
veterans.
Mr. Walz. Yes.
Mr. Jefferson. It is a nonpartisan, bipartisan commitment.
So we launched a pilot in July in 14 States. In just about 45
days, my State directors who normally met one employer at a
time, 10 State directors met about 1,500 employers, got the
message, 300 follow-up meetings. So that is like a one to 30
ratio whereas before it may be, you know, one to a negative
ratio.
We are now going to phase two with the top 100 chambers. We
are going to do mega hiring fairs. We are prototyping that next
month in March. We are also bringing the Society for Human
Resource Management and a second pilot.
So we are going to strengthen our engagement with
employers. I want my State directors with DVOP and LVER on each
side on the panel talking to hundreds of employers at a time.
Number two, changing the cultural conversation in America.
A veteran on the cover of Fortune for the first time in the
magazine's history, I believe, last year. We are working with
Fortune, Forbes, and Business Week. We have commitments for two
sections in Business Week this year, one in Forbes, one in
Fortune. Thirty million unique visitors will get the message
when Business Week does something. We want the message to be
hire a veteran and where to find a veteran.
Finally, USERRA. I am bringing in best practices there. We
have done a lean six sigma quality improvement process. It is
very paper-centric right now. We are going to go to e-case
management, automate that process, and bring best practices
into that.
So it is the marketing and it is also getting the employers
engaged. They want to hire veterans. They do not know how to
find them.
Mr. Walz. Very good. Do things like the work opportunity
tax credit help?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, they do. You know, a lot of employers
say is there a tax credit. They are not aware that there is a
work opportunity tax credit. So part of this is us getting out
in front of them and giving them information. There has been a
gap in that connectivity.
Mr. Walz. We are trying to strengthen that to expand it
into the National Guard. So one of the problems we have, and I
think the Chairman was getting at this, one of the problems we
have with our Guard members that you do not qualify to be able
to take that to your employer. Educate our folks so when they
go out and say, hey, if you hire me, not only are you going to
get one of the best workers, most dedicated----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. People of this country, I am also
coming with a $4,000 tax credit.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz. But one of the problems is to qualify for that,
you have to be unemployed first. And some of these guys have
not applied for unemployment. Why should we force them to apply
for unemployment if they can first go out and get there, the
way I understand it with National Guard; is that correct?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I have to deep dive into that. That was
not my understanding. So I do not want to guess.
Mr. Walz. We have been having some trouble with the Guard,
but I bring that up and----
Mr. Jefferson. Let's take that as task for my team. We will
go back and see if that is--that would certainly----
Mr. Walz. And I say that because I do not think these
employers--it is not bribing them to hire veterans at all.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz. But this is an issue of the entire country should
sacrifice for this if these folks are going to go out on the
line, hire folks, train them with the understanding, especially
Guardsmen, they may deploy again. I think we need to get that
right. the
And the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has
called for recently a Pew type study of how do we do a better
job of cross-walking certification----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Over into the private sector. Are
you hearing that from employers that that would be helpful?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I believe that making employers aware
of how to translate the skill sets, the knowledge, the
abilities that veterans gain into a value proposition is
helpful. We are going to bring that into TAP.
We are also meeting with IAVA either this afternoon or next
week. We have a meeting with them to talk about how we align
our efforts as well. We are working with all the veteran
service organizations who are behind us right now. So this is a
strong partnership. We are going to keep bringing it and just
making it better and better.
Mr. Walz. Well, I appreciate it. And I would also say this
is a chronic issue. We hear it often. But I would echo again
there is nobody else I would want in the job except you right
there right now. So thank you.
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I appreciate your support. My team
appreciates it. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
I have a quick question on the work opportunity tax credit.
That is a $12,000 tax credit?
Mr. Jefferson. No, sir. I believe it is $2,400 for a
veteran and $4,800 for a disabled veteran. Let me quickly turn
to my career deputy who is my numbers expert. I got the numbers
right? Is that the general ballpark?
Okay. So that is the general ballpark. We actually have a
memo on it that I can share with your office as well and the
Committee members.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Yeah, I would appreciate it.
[Responding to the request of Mr. Walz and Chairman
Stutzman, the DoL subsequently provided the following pamphlet
entitled, ``The Work Opportunity Tax Credit Solution, Puts Tax
Savings in the Palm of Your Hands,'' dated August 2009, U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.]
Mr. Jefferson. It is almost double. There is an increase if
it is a disabled veteran.
Mr. Walz. Mr. Chairman, if I could, we just introduced the
extension of this that we did last year. We had great
cooperation. Mr. Boozman was interested in this. It is over in
the Senate side. There is a companion over there. Mr. Roe and
myself put that out in the last few days, so it might be----
Mr. Stutzman. Okay.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Of interest to try and update that
and give them that tool.
Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Absolutely. You said it was $2,400 for the--
--
Mr. Walz. Yes, for a veteran and $4,800 for a disabled
veteran. One of the things we strengthen on is expanding it to
the Guard and Reserves.
Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. All right. Very good information. Thank you.
Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Jefferson, under the general operating expenses
account, you have requested an additional $1.5 million, which
is for other services. That is an increase over the 2010
budget.
What do you define as other services and what is the
rationale for the increase?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I believe that is relating to the TAP
Program. Let me look at the actual budget item there. Budget
object class 25.2, an increase of $1.6 million roughly.
Two things. One, redesigning the Transition Assistance
Program the first time in 19 years, so that is for procurement
second year costs. And also we are going to improve the
delivery system by going to an all contract facilitator force
and that is the second reasoning for that increase.
Mr. Denham. Thirteen point two overall in other services?
Mr. Jefferson. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Denham. So you are expanding it to $1.5 million?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, $1.6 million.
Mr. Denham. Okay. And you are currently doing a review of
the Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Denham. Where are you at on that right now?
Mr. Jefferson. Our State directors are all having what I
call a structured dialogue, meaning they have eight questions
to get feedback on. Some of this is qualitative feedback.
Others I am asking them to provide ratings.
And so we are going to get that for every State to include
the territories and then we are going to make information-based
decisions on how to improve the program. But I first wanted to
get a database and there has not been one done internally since
the problem started in 2002.
Mr. Denham. Why has it taken so long?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, I cannot comment on what has happened
prior to me getting here. I can just tell you that if you look
at our track record for the last 18 months, we have taken a
transformation of almost every single program and doing it with
the resources we have, TAP, employer outreach, engagement with
the younger veterans, rural veterans, marketing.
We are doing a whole host. I think we have about 22
initiatives we have never done before. So I am trying to drive
things as quickly as possible without redlining the engine and
us burning out very candidly.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
A couple months ago, we met with Secretary Gates and the
question I had for him is will he have enough funding in this
year's budget to address all of the needs for the returning
veterans, including the job assessment and actually----
Mr. Jefferson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Denham [continuing]. Making sure that we are doing
retraining for all of those veterans. And he had said at the
time that he did have adequate funding. My concern is how do we
not only address the needs but identify the individuals that
have the need.
Right now it is my understanding, well, especially without
the review, that it is a request program. But if the veteran
returns home and never understands that there is assistance out
there or is not being connected, then we do not know that we
are meeting that need in the first place. I know that you are
working with some States.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham. Like California, we have Operation Vet Connect.
There is, I would say, an improved communication.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham. But there is no reason we should not be
communicating with every veteran that returns.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir, absolutely. So right now we have
about 160,000 servicemembers who exit the military every year
and 110,000 demobilizations. We serve 80 percent of them, so we
are capturing 80 percent in the Transition Assistance Program.
That week-long program provides them an overview of their
benefits and services from VA, from DoD, and then also from the
Labor Department.
Mr. Denham. Why only 80 percent?
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, no one knows the answer. Let me give
you my belief. Eighty percent of the people are choosing to go
with the program. This is just Assistant Secretary Jefferson
talking. Because they see there is value in the program. Twenty
percent do not perceive that there is value.
Now, we are re-engineering this to national and global best
practices. We are also working to engage with employers as
advocates of the program. We are going to be having some
meetings with the entertainment industry to see if we can raise
awareness of the program among the younger veterans.
My objective is for them to realize, one, there is a brand
new program; two, it is better; and, three, you will have
better employment outcomes by attending it and by doing that to
increase the participation.
I will also tell you for the first time, we are going to
measure the performance of the program. One point seven million
people have gone through it. There is not one performance
metric in existence. I am creating performance metrics at three
moments of assessment going forward.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And just to wrap up, 80 percent on Transition Assistance I
would say is a good start. As a young airman myself when I
left, I was probably in that 20 percent because I did not feel
like I needed anything at the time.
Mr. Jefferson. So was I, sir.
Mr. Denham. But as you get down the road----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham [continuing]. Whether it is Reserve duty or
National Guard, you know, or you have just completely gone non-
active, at some point, you may decide that you need something.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham. Maybe later in life, you know, we are seeing
some of the Vietnam veterans that probably were in that 20
percent. I am sure it was a much higher percentage back then.
Then now find out that they have disabilities that result back
from their time of service.
My concern is that not just are we missing the 20 percent
that have transitioned----
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham [continuing]. But it truly is a transition which
I do not think anybody knows what the percentage is after that
because we do not have the good communication with all of our
States.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes. So there are three things that we are
doing that will specifically address what you are talking about
which is we will call it older veterans or veterans who need
employment services or training post the transitional phase.
Number one, there are six components to the new TAP. One of
those components is an online virtual TAP Program that every
veteran, Guard, Reservist will have access to for the duration
of his or her life. So if they need to retrain, refresh, or
deep dive into resume, interview, networking, story telling,
mental resiliency training, stress reduction techniques, career
planning, transitioning to a new work environment, that will
all be there for them, number one.
Number two, they do have DVOPs and LVERs who can also
assist them one on one with doing resume reviews, interview
training, et cetera.
And number three, I want to raise awareness of the first
two through marketing, media, increased outreach.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And just to wrap up, my concern is not with marketing.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham. I think that we are doing an improved job of
marketing.
Mr. Jefferson. All right, sir.
Mr. Denham. My issue is every veteran should have the
opportunity and we ought to be able to, I mean, through various
government entities be able to outreach to them. My concern is,
is after they get out of this transition phase, you get
released from active duty in Texas, but you are a California
resident, we are not having that interaction between California
and the active-duty personnel to be able to say we are going to
track them from here on out.
So if somebody ends up homeless or they end up out of work
or they need job training, but do not know that those
assistance are out there, just like Mr. Walz had said with the
unemployment issue, we should not wait until they go to
unemployment.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Denham. We ought to have a way to outreach to them
because we know who they are and the States who are prepared to
interact with them if they only had that information. So we
have a real disconnect between States and Federal Government.
And right now my concern is today we are going to have more
veterans returning this year than we have had since Vietnam.
Mr. Jefferson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Denham. And I do not feel like we are prepared there to
address not only the job aspect of this, but also we are going
to have this huge opportunity to correct a big mistake and we
are able to have that connection with them day in and day out
year after year.
And if we miss this opportunity, it is going to be just
like the similar situations in the past where once they are off
active duty, once they have missed that transition, then 20
years down the road, they realize that they have an issue, but
we have nobody that is doing that outreach.
So just to say that we are going to do a TV commercial or
put it into a magazine still does not get there to have that
direct contact because you know who that individual is, you
know where they live, you have their e-mail address, and you
are able to pass that on to the State.
Mr. Jefferson. Sir, we are solving that. I apologize for
not communicating that effectively. As we go with our TAP
transformation, we are working with DoD so that we can track
the participants into other States, into their future core
decisions, et cetera.
So we create a safety net that provides a continuum of
support. So that is what we are doing right now, which did not
exist before. That is new. That is an innovation. That is
happening.
Now, for those servicemembers who do not attend TAP, that
is where we want to, you know, engage them, make sure that they
have information constantly coming to them so whenever in their
life they want to access these resources, they know what they
can get from Labor, what they can get from VA, what they can
get from DoD.
So we are working to solve that right now, but it was not
part of the program in the past, but it will be going forward.
Mr. Denham. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. All right. Thank you.
And just information for the Committee, we are also going
to do a hearing in mid-April on TAP as well so we can be
addressing some of those issues.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir. We are very excited about that.
Mr. Stutzman. And then I guess out of respect, I want to
make sure that we respect everybody's time, but this has been
really good, helpful information, does anybody else have a
follow-up question that they would like to ask? I would be
willing to do that if the Committee is interested in doing
that.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify
something that Mr. Walz brought up so that everybody here has
the correct information.
In looking at the Department of Labor's Web site on the
work opportunity tax credit, it appears that it will expire on
September 1st of this year. The categories range from a maximum
credit of $1,500 for veterans all the way up to $9,000 if the
veteran is in a family that is currently receiving taxpayer
assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Program. So there is an incredible economic incentive. I think
it has been very successful in achieving the objectives and
giving employers greater incentives to hire unemployed workers.
And you raised the point about going on unemployment first.
It looks like the only criteria is it has to be a new employee.
So they could not have worked for that employer before.
Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Braley. I do not think it is tied directly to filing
for unemployment, but it has to be someone who has not worked
for that business in the past.
Mr. Stutzman. Is that a one-
time credit for 1 year? Is that correct?
Mr. Braley. Up to 2 years.
Mr. Stutzman. Up to 2 years?
Mr. Braley. Uh-huh.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. You are welcome.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Huelskamp, any further questions?
Mr. Huelskamp. No.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. I am good.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much.
This has been very helpful information and I found a couple of
new items that I am looking forward to working on in the
future. So with that, on behalf of the Subcommittee, thank you
for being here and thank you for your testimony. And we look
forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, sir. We are very excited about
that. I appreciate your support.
Mr. Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, we are very
excited and we are going to keep working with urgency and
innovation to continue to make things better and better. Thank
you.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
I now welcome Ms. Bonnie Elsey to the witness table. Ms.
Elsey is the President-Elect of the National Association of
State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the Senior Administrative
Officer of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development.
And I would note that the gentleman and sergeant major from
Minnesota, Mr. Walz, continues to serve veterans in so many
different ways and is a Member of our Subcommittee.
And we welcome you and recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank
you for being here and thank you for the work that you do as
well.
STATEMENT OF BONNIE ELSEY, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES, AND SENIOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Elsey. Thank you.
Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley and Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Bonnie Elsey and I really thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee today.
I am the Senior Administrative Officer for the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development and
President-Elect of the National Association of State Workforce
Agencies, known as NASWA.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget and on the performance
of the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists and
Local Veterans' Employment Representatives otherwise known as
DVOPs and LVERs respectfully.
NASWA members are the State leaders of the publicly-funded
employment system, which is vital to meeting the employment
needs of veterans through DVOP, LVER, and Wager-Peyser
programs.
I especially commend your leadership on this very critical
issue. With the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of
close to 10 percent for all veterans as of January 2011, we
must do everything possible to ensure there is no ambiguity in
our existing programs and sufficient funding is available to
meet our highest priority, serving all veterans, especially our
recently separated veterans and disabled veterans.
While my written testimony addressed the specific questions
in your invitation letter, I would like to discuss five issues
of great importance.
Number one, the budget. In an effort to improve the quality
of services to veterans, especially disabled veterans, and
their employment outcomes, the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002
clarified the roles and performance standards of DVOPs and
LVERs, yet the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
contends the DVOP and LVER programs are not fulfilling their
mandated role of providing intensive services to all
participants.
As a result, the Administration is planning to operate the
Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program differently from prior
years. Although NASWA recognizes the VETS' refocused goals, we
are concerned about the ability to increase the number of
veterans receiving intensive services from DVOP specialists
without additional funding.
Intensive services are just that, intensive. They require
more time and effort. Not all veterans need intensive services.
Number two, performance outcomes. NASWA is concerned that
performance outcomes by States posted on the VETS' Web site may
lead to incorrect assumptions about a State's performance. A
State's unemployment rate can impact outcomes and State
measures should be adjusted to reflect these differences.
Figure one in the appendix of my testimony illustrates this
relationship. For example, the high unemployment States such as
Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina generally will have poorer
performance than States like North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Nebraska, all of which have unemployment rates under 5 percent.
Number three, furloughs. NASWA recommends language to
prohibit States from imposing furloughs and hiring freezes on
staff funded by Jobs for Veterans State Grants. Since these are
Federal funds, any dollars saved have no positive impact on a
State's budget. Services to our Nation's veterans should not be
negatively impacted because of State budget problems.
Number four, enhance awareness of veterans' programs. NASWA
recommends enhanced efforts to raise awareness of the DVOP and
LVER programs to veterans and employers, including human
resource managers.
A June 2010 survey from the Society for Human Resource
Management shows that human resources managers are largely
unaware of U.S. DoL programs to help veterans find jobs. In
addition, the survey shows that recently separated veterans
have difficulty translating their military skills to civilian
jobs.
NASWA recommends VETS' and Jobs for Veterans State Grant
funds be used to implement tools to translate military skills
and improve licensing certification and credentialing systems
to assist the military members to transition to civilian
employment.
Number five, labor exchange. NASWA urges the United States
Department of Labor to use the National Labor Exchange, an
online network connecting employers and State workforce
agencies. The National Labor Exchange provides Federal
contractor jobs for States to assist eligible veterans in
finding employment through a service called Vet Central. The
Vet Central service allows businesses to meet the compliance
requirements of the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance and
puts jobs in the hands of State and local staff that work for
veterans on a daily basis.
I greatly appreciate all the work by this Subcommittee on
the Federal contractor job listing process, but NASWA member
States still are unable to identify all Federal contractors and
subcontractors and hope we can continue working with you and
the U.S. Department of Labor to resolve this matter.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment and we stand
ready to work with the Subcommittee, United States Department
of Labor, and all interested stakeholders.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Elsey appears on p. 57.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Ms. Elsey.
Again, I will begin questioning and then we will recognize
the Ranking Member and our other Members alternating between
the two sides.
First of all, what is your response to this quote on the
Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program in the VETS' fiscal year
2012 budget submission? ``The program clearly was not
fulfilling its mandated role.'' How would you respond to that
line?
Ms. Elsey. Well, I know that they are responding to the
fact that 17 percent of the veterans served received intensive
services. And I just can speak for my own State of Minnesota. I
think it is really important to have a screening process in a
one-stop.
What we do in Minnesota is when a person comes in and they
state they are a veteran, we immediately ask them additional
questions. And the types of questions that we ask help us
identify whether or not they should be referred to a DVOP. And
the kinds of questions have to do with do you have a chemical
abuse problem, have you ever had a criminal record, what is
your last residence.
We are looking for the fact of do they have a residence,
are they homeless, and are you a recently separated vet because
then we try to have all the recently separated people from the
Afghanistan and Iraqi War see a DVOP for initial screening.
But that is what we do. And our DVOPs work mainly with
people with chemical dependency issues, people that have
criminal backgrounds, and then a lot of their work is really
translating their military experience into skills that are
needed by business.
And there are tools out there that really help. I mean,
last fall, the Department of Labor introduced the My Skills, My
Future which is a transferability skill mapping system. And
first you have to help the--they still are translating
occupations in the military labor force to occupations in the
civilian labor force, so you have to first work with the
veteran to make sure that they can explain to you what they did
in the military and then the DVOP can help them identify what
kind of skill that would be in the civilian labor force so that
they can better utilize some of these tools that have been
implemented.
Mr. Stutzman. The next question would be, do you have a
position on having all TAP briefings currently conducted by
DVOPs and LVERs transferred to contract instructors so that
DVOP and LVERs can better focus on finding veteran job
opportunities?
Ms. Elsey. Well, I could just speak to what we have done in
Minnesota again.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Elsey. We have a program called Beyond the Yellow
Ribbon. That is something that was actually started in
Minnesota and we are very proud of. And what that really is is
we go to the bases where the returning veterans land so that we
are there when they get there. And it is not just the DVOPs and
LVERs that go. We bring people from our community college
system. We bring people from the Veterans Administration.
And we want to make sure that they know that when they get
back to Minnesota, we are there to help them. And we want to
put a face to the people that they can work with. And so it is
very important for us. We go to every single one and send these
staff there. That way, we are having a lot better response for
the veterans to come into our offices when they get back to
Minnesota.
Within 30 days, we also contact all these people again to
see how are they transitioning, what are they doing. And I know
TAP is when they are still on the base and in the services. We
are doing this when they are being discharged from the base.
Usually we are going to Fort McCoy because a lot of our people
are going to Fort McCoy. And then we see them again when they
come back to Minnesota. So we think that it is really important
that they know us before they even come home.
Mr. Stutzman. In your testimony, you reference a Society of
Human Resource Management study that showed over 68 percent of
employers were not aware of DVOP and LVER programs. That is a
large number.
Ms. Elsey. That is too large of a number.
Mr. Stutzman. How do you and how will other member
organizations address that particular issue?
Ms. Elsey. Well, I think like it was stated in the last
testimony, I think it is extremely important to get to groups
of employers----
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Elsey [continuing]. Because there will never be enough
LVERs to be able to contact all the businesses and make them
understand what is available to them and the value of hiring
veterans.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Elsey. And so the Chamber of Commerce, but there is a
lot of business organizations and we also work with like the
Societies for--they have manufacturing associations and, you
know, the different sector associations are very important to
get to those organizations so they understand, you know, the
skills of the returning veterans.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes. Because I know as a small business
owner, we are often looking for employees and information like
this.
And I know from where I come from in northeast Indiana, the
employers there would be--you know, they are very patriotic and
they would be more than happy to serve those veterans and put
them at the front of the line if they are capable, they are
willing, and trained to do those particular jobs.
I think that is a wonderful opportunity not only for them,
but we need to get that information to them because I would
guess that most, it reflects in the numbers, that most folks do
not even know about that.
Ms. Elsey. That is correct. And we also have 35 staff that
are paid for by Wagner-Peyser that are business services
specialists. And they talk to employers about the veterans and,
you know, the skills of the veterans. And once I think
employers understand, they are very interested in seeing
qualified vets.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes. Yes. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Does Princess Kay of the Milky Way take part in
these demobilization programs?
Ms. Elsey. Not that I know of.
Mr. Braley. It is an inside joke in Minnesota.
Ms. Elsey. Oh.
Mr. Braley. My serious question for you is, do you think
that the Governors of the individual States in general see
these grants as additional funds to supplement their staff
instead of for their original purpose, which is to assist
veterans?
Ms. Elsey. Okay. I cannot speak for the Governor. I do not
know what they know about a lot of our programs. But I am the
head of all of the workforce programs and I definitely know
that these positions are specialized to serve veterans. And the
DVOPs are to serve disabled veterans and veterans with a lot of
barriers to employment.
Mr. Braley. But in this era of constrained State budgets
where there is heavy temptation to shift resources to address
other economic problems, are you at all concerned about these
funds being used within each State for their primary purpose to
assist disabled veterans and veterans generally?
Ms. Elsey. I am not concerned about that.
Mr. Braley. Okay. The budget request for fiscal year 2012,
which we talked about in our first panel, is it your
understanding that that provides sufficient funding for the
VETS Program?
Ms. Elsey. No. I believe because of the fact that we need
to do more of the intensive services that we would need
additional resources if our expectation is to do more with the
veterans.
We are finding that the majority of the veterans that we
are still working with are Vietnam era vets. And I truly
believe that there was nothing there for them when they came
back. And that is one of the issues that they are having all
these years later.
Mr. Braley. What would you consider an appropriate funding
level for VETS to meet the demand for services?
Ms. Elsey. I would have to get back with you on that.
Mr. Braley. Will you do that----
Ms. Elsey. Yes.
[Ms. Elsey subsequently provided the following
information:]
In this time of severe budget shortages, NASWA appreciates
that the JVSG has received fairly level-funding for a number of
years. However, the increased need for intensive services and
the ever-growing number of recently-separated veterans,
especially disabled veterans, supports maintaining or
increasing the funding level for the JVSG.
As indicated in our written testimony, the U.S. Military
services discharge approximately 160,000 active duty
servicemembers and 90,000 Reserve and National Guard members
annually. We can expect a greater demand for transition and
employment services for veterans over the next few years.
NASWA does not have a position regarding the adequate level
of funding. Further analysis is recommended to determine an
appropriate funding level.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. And provide that to the Committee?
In your written testimony, you mentioned that NASWA is
concerned about the number of veterans who would be able to
receive intensive services from DVOP specialists.
Do you have an estimate of the number of veterans who need
those services currently?
Ms. Elsey. I would have to ask my State director. I do not
know that.
Mr. Braley. And would you also provide that----
Ms. Elsey. Yes.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. To the Subcommittee?
Ms. Elsey. I will.
[Ms. Elsey subsequently provided the following
information:]
Due to VETS refocus on the roles and responsibilities of DVOP
specialists, especially to increase intensive services, NASWA
is concerned with the ability of DVOP specialists to handle the
increased volume. NASWA recommends VETS conduct a study to
ascertain the number of veterans needing intensive services and
the appropriate average caseload for a DVOP. NASWA is willing
to work with VETS on such a study.
Mr. Braley. You also mentioned in your written testimony
that there are several individuals who have not received
training by the National Veterans' Training Institute.
Are individuals unable to complete that training because
NVTI does not have appropriate funding to provide the training
or is there some other obstacle to achieving that goal?
Ms. Elsey. Well, I know that in some of those who have not
had training, the DVOP themselves are unable to travel because
of their own disabilities. And so that probably would need to
be brought to them which would cost more.
I know in Minnesota, we just brought NVTI to us so that we
could train more people at one time within our State. So I
think you have to be flexible and look at different models. And
any time you are going to do more things one on one, it is
going to cost more money.
Mr. Braley. Okay. Well, in the VA health care system, there
is an increased reliance upon telemedicine to provide veterans,
especially in rural areas, access not just to general health
services but also to psychological and psychiatric counseling.
Are you aware of any pilot programs or efforts to try to
bridge this gap that you have just identified through the use
of telecommunications so that we can eliminate those barriers?
Ms. Elsey. No, I am not, but that is a very good idea.
Mr. Braley. One of the things we rarely talk about is the
issue of incarcerated veterans.
Ms. Elsey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Braley. And, yet, we know that there are a large number
of incarcerated veterans who served their country honorably but
have fallen on hard times.
What is your sense of how they are doing as a population
and what more can be done to make them more successful,
especially when they are released from incarceration and face
all of the problems that the normal prison population does in
trying to readjust to life outside the walls?
Ms. Elsey. Yeah. We have a program in Minnesota. We have a
contract with the Department of Corrections where we go in the
prisons and teach job seeking skills. And so this is not just
for veterans, but it is really important. And it is really
important to stay connected when they get out because if they
do not get a job, they could likely get re-incarcerated again.
And so we do have some pretty intensive services for those
people. And if they are veterans, the DVOPs really make those
people priorities. We have to make sure they have food and
shelter and that they have some way to make a living. And it is
really important to do special outreach to businesses to give
these people a second chance. And it is difficult for vets. It
is difficult for all incarcerated people.
Mr. Braley. Thank you for your time.
Ms. Elsey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being there today. It is not summer. It just
looks that way.
Ms. Elsey. It is a lot better than when I left Minnesota.
Mr. Walz. Well, Mr. Braley is very familiar and good with
his geography, so he knows that all our children are above
average in Minnesota.
And the issue, though, at hand is there is something
different. Not all States are necessarily created equal in
this. And I say that not in a pejorative way or whatever. I am
very proud of this Yellow Ribbon Project. It was an initiative
by Governor Pawlenty and it was very bipartisan. I deployed and
redeployed under Yellow Ribbon and I think there is good
evidence, good data to support you are in much better shape in
terms of getting medical care, getting employment assistance
and all of that.
We tried to take this on a national scale. We tried to get
it upgraded, Representative Kline and myself and others who
witnessed it.
In your opinion, would that collaboration--because what the
Yellow Ribbon really does is I think it avoids duplication. It
brings services from different agencies together.
Ms. Elsey. Right.
Mr. Walz. And it stretches the efficiencies that the public
is asking for, at the same time getting outcomes. In your
opinion, is that something that would work to try and expand
this?
Ms. Elsey. I do not see how this would not benefit every
State. It is really a great program.
Mr. Walz. And it works and it----
Ms. Elsey. And it works.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. Is a strong collaboration with the
private sector. We have been trying to push this I think now
more than ever that emphasis needs to be on there again to get
that right.
Again, I would go back to as a broken record some of this
is seamless transition from DoD that we have that problem. I
wanted to ask and I know there are some folks out here, I keep
coming back to this cross-walking skills and heard you talk
about it to help employers understand this.
Guys like Rick and Ray who have been out there every time I
come up with this good idea, they said that is a wonderful
idea. Twenty-two years ago, that is exactly what we put in for.
So there was one where the Veteran Certification and Licensure
Act of 2006 was supposed to do exactly what we are talking
about here.
Is that happening in your opinion?
Ms. Elsey. The only thing that has been successful so far
in Minnesota is truck driving. Anybody who has been in the
military and had extensive experience in driving a truck does
not have to take any behind-the-wheel training. They just have
to take a written test.
Mr. Walz. Okay. And that has been helpful, I assume. I hear
this a lot. There is a frustration with people, you know, these
red bulls. I drove 22 months in Iraq. I can surely drive to
Fridley, you know, if that is what it takes and that is a
frustration with them. That one is working.
I hear a lot of our young medics and we certainly do not
want to, you know, step on State requirements, safety
requirements, but I will tell you that. Some of these folks
have massive amounts of experience and they are having a
difficult time. And then they go back into an expensive program
to use services to come out with a certificate that they
already had the skills to.
Ms. Elsey. That is correct.
Mr. Walz. So is there a need for another, like IAVA is
calling for, a Pew type study on cross-walking these things
over or is there, we are just not implementing? That is what I
am trying to understand because I hate to get into this another
study. There are folks out here behind you that have been
involved in decades of studies and they get tired of them.
Ms. Elsey. Well, I think there are a lot of tools that we
can use. I really am not the expert to be able to answer
whether we need another study or not.
Mr. Walz. Okay. But if these are implemented, if there is
the ability to get that certification, it is making a
difference, it is getting people hired----
Ms. Elsey. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. And it is lowering the unemployment?
Ms. Elsey. Yes. And community colleges are very important
in this area. You know, they have to be flexible and willing to
look at those skills also and be able to translate those
military skills and assess those skills so that they do not
have to go through a 1- or 2-year program to get what they
already have.
Mr. Walz. That is great. Well, I appreciate your service
and your focus on this great resource for us. And I appreciate
that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
What do you think the emphasis should be on? Should it be
on retraining or training relevant skills to unemployed vets or
placement services and right now where are the priorities at?
Ms. Elsey. Well, I think it is important to note that
business is requiring more and more skills of all workers all
the time. And this is such an individualized thing based on
what the skills are of the person that comes in.
But the people that do need retraining, we make sure that
they connect with our Workforce Investment Act (WIA) staff
within our workforce centers. And we also connect them with our
community college system because getting a job right away is
important, but life-long learning is critical. And they are
going to have to get some skill and continue to learn. And I
think that is one of the things that our DVOPs really are good
at. We have a lot of networking groups just for veterans.
When it comes to job seeking skills and, you know, some of
the how to write a resume and a lot of those things, they use a
regular Wagner-Peyser WIA adult services to learn those things.
But we have special networking groups that the DVOPs facilitate
just on how to translate skills, how to talk about your
military experience, you know, and how to sell that to an
employer because you obviously know how to follow directions
and there are, you know, a lot of the kinds of skills that
businesses want.
But when it comes to training, it really depends upon, you
know, some of them went into the service with an education and
it really depends upon the individual. But training is
important for everybody and, yes, it is important for veterans.
And it is not just when they first come out of the service. It
is life long.
Mr. Stutzman. What role do you or are employers taking in
communicating what their needs are as far as trained employees?
I mean, obviously not every veteran is going to have every
skill and knowledge of the job that they are being placed in or
seeking. I mean, there is obviously going to be some on-the-job
training.
I mean, what level are they looking for? I mean, there has
to be just some basic priorities that every employer is saying
this is what we are looking for and then we will kind of take
it from there.
Ms. Elsey. Well, every employer is looking for the soft
skills, you know, will you show up on time.
Mr. Stutzman. Right.
Ms. Elsey. Will you come to work every day, you know, can
you follow direction. And these are the things that I think a
veteran has an easy time----
Mr. Stutzman. Right.
Ms. Elsey [continuing]. Talking about. And so we also do
quite a bit of on-the-job training under our Workforce
Investment Act programs. And, of course, veterans are a
priority of service for that. So there are a lot of businesses
that want those basic skills and will train themselves, you
know, train their employees on the job.
Mr. Stutzman. So would you say that right now then most of
the priorities are on placement services or on training
services?
Ms. Elsey. I would have to ask my DVOPs, but I think it is
both.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Elsey. And it really depends also upon the individual
if they have to have money and they have to have a job right
away.
So, I mean, one of the things that we have been pushing
very hard in our State is more flexibility in the community
college system. They are set up to educate people coming out of
K through 12 and they are not set up for evenings, weekends,
you know, for people who have to work and go to school at the
same time.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Elsey. And so we are pushing very hard that they do
more and more of that kind of work because that will help
everybody who has to work and learn at the same time.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
Any followup?
Mr. Braley. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
One of the big problems that all businesses face, all
agencies face is paperwork compliance.
Ms. Elsey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Braley. And my question for you is, does VETS have too
many reports to do right now and are any unnecessary in your
opinion?
Ms. Elsey. I cannot speak to that because I do not do the
veterans' reports, so I really do not have any idea what they
have to do.
Mr. Braley. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Elsey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you very much and I appreciate
you being here. And, again, your testimony has been very, very
helpful and I hope you have a good trip home.
Ms. Elsey. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Now I ask the members of our third panel to come to
the table. Today we have AMVETS Acting Legislative Director,
Mr. John Wilson? I am sorry. Oh, I am sorry. That was actually
Christina Roof who was not able to be here today.
So John Wilson, Assistant Legislative Director for the
Disabled American Veteran (DAV). My apologies there. Mr. Ray
Kelley, Director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars' (VFW's)
National Legislative Service; Mr. Bob Madden, Assistant
Director of the American Legion's National Economic Commission;
and Mr. Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and
Government Affairs of the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA).
And I want to welcome each of you. Thank you for your
service and what you do with each of your respective
organizations. One of the great joys for me is to visit your
organizations back home and what they do and the services that
are provided and just the patriotism, the camaraderie that is
there and the joys of sitting together and talking shop.
So please feel free to make your statements according to
how you would like to and then we will move forward with the
questioning.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN L. WILSON, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; RAYMOND C. KELLEY,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERT W. MADDEN, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; AND
RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY
AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF
AMERICA
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
am glad to be here this morning on behalf of the DAV to present
our views on the President's fiscal year 2012 budget as it
relates to the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment
and Training Service or VETS.
In my oral remarks, I will address the Jobs for Veterans
State Grants, then the National Veterans' Training Institute
funding, and finally changes in various performance measures.
First, Jobs for Veterans State Grants. VETS provides
critical employment services for our Nation's veterans. Today's
continued high unemployment rates underscore the need for a
properly funded program and an effective and well-trained
staff.
Jobs are slowly returning, but population growth brings
100,000 plus new job seekers into the workforce each month. We
will only see unemployment rates for veterans and others
decrease when jobs are created at a much higher rate.
Veterans, especially those of the current conflicts, are
well aware of the impact of the January 2011 unemployment rate
of 15.2 percent.
The funding of VETS ensures employment and training
services are available for eligible veterans through the Jobs
for Veterans State Grants Program which is allocated to State
workforce agencies in direct proportion to the number of
veterans seeking employment, with DVOPs and LVERs providing
employment services to transitioning servicemembers, veterans
and their spouses, as well as potential employers.
In reviewing the fiscal year 2012 VETS State Grants' budget
request of $165.4 million, we look to DoL to advise on the
sufficiency of this budget to ensure enough staff are available
to provide assistance to a growing population of unemployed
veterans.
Secondly, the National Veterans' Training Institute. NVTI
provides specialized training and veterans' employment to new
veterans' representatives from each State to further develop
and enhance professional skills of State employment
representatives which include DVOPs and LVERs.
VETS also sends their staff to NVTI for training in the
details of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act and the Transition Assistance Program. Because of
inadequate funding, NVTI has had a staff shortage of at least
two to three full-time staff members in Denver over the past 2
years.
Public Law 111-275, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act
of 2010, now requires all DVOPs and LVERs to be trained within
18 months of being hired as Assistant Secretary Jefferson
indicated instead, of the prior 36 month standard.
NVTI will not be able to meet this shortened training
requirement without additional staff. We urge DoL to ensure
funding of NVTI will be sufficient to meet this new
Congressional mandate.
Third, changes to performance measures. While we are
interested in improvement of services through a refocused
effort, we are concerned with the proposed reduction of
performance standards for fiscal year 2012.
What data was used to support a reduction in the
performance measures? What are the objective findings to
support reducing DVOP and LVER targets for performance measures
one and four in 2012 to 45.2 percent and 42.1 percent
respectively? What is the refocusing strategy to provide more
intensive services to veterans above the current and rather low
17 percent mark?
Given our Nation's investment in training these veterans
when they were on active duty and seeking to employ them now
through the VETS State Grant Program, it would seem more
reasonable to focus on increasing performance measures
standards, not decreasing them.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 68.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY
Mr. Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars and its auxiliary, thank you for allowing me to
testify today.
Veterans' employment is one of our top priorities at VFW
and having an opportunity to talk today about the front-line
help that veterans should be receiving within their community
through the DVOPs and LVERs is a great opportunity and a great
place to start the discussion because if we cannot reach them
when they are at home, we are not going to reach them.
I would like to speak directly to the State Grants Program
and then the Workforce Investment programs as well. We looked
and found what we believe to be five deficiencies in the
effectiveness of the DVOP and LVER Program.
First is the funding mechanism that is used to determine
how much money each one of the States gets. It looks like a
reverse incentive to us that the States receive money based on
a ratio of how many veterans are employed in the State. So if
you do really, really good work in a State, it is a
disincentive. You are going to receive less funding, therefore,
be able to hire fewer DVOPs and LVERs.
Second, the services that are provided by the DVOPs and
LVERs is duplicative in nature. Over the years, other State
programs and Federal-funded programs are providing similar or
the same services in a lot of cases and we can look at the
Wagner-Peyser Program that is funded. It is a very large
program. It provides nearly the same services as the LVERs and
has the same placement rate for veterans as the DVOPs and LVERs
do. So there is obviously a duplication. They also provide
priority for veteran service. So veterans get front-of-the-line
service through this program.
Also, ill-defined job descriptions of the DVOPs and LVERs
is another issue. We have DVOPs doing LVER work and then LVERs
doing work that is not necessarily in their scope. This can be
seen in DVOPs 17 percent of the time providing what their core
requirement is which is that intensive service.
Also, performance measures are lacking. We do not know how
to rate how well States are doing. There are no performance
measures on what types of services they are providing to each
one of these individuals. We do not know if they are just
coming in to use the computer to apply for a job online or if
they are really getting much more service than that.
Also, outreach into the communities is very low. A 2007
study done by VA found that only 21 percent of veterans who are
seeking jobs go to a State workforce agency to help for
assistance.
I want to take about a minute to talk about the Workforce
Investment programs. We contacted 17 of the grant recipients
for this and the results were varied. And, again, I think it is
based on having a lack of performance measures that we require
back from them.
There are organizations that are receiving relatively small
amounts of money and helping a lot of veterans. And there is
one particular over a 2-year period that has received $1.4
million and in 2010, they helped 70 veterans. We need to
understand where this money is going, what it is being used
for.
And I will turn it back. I will be happy to answer any
questions regarding any of the rest of my written statement as
well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears on p. 72.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
How much money did you mention right there at the end?
Mr. Kelley. It was $1.4 million. It was over a 2-year
period and it encompasses not only the homeless grant but also
the--I forget the name of the other grant off the top of my
head, but the other grant program that is providing
organizations money to help reintegrate veterans.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. How many placements again?
Mr. Kelley. Seventy.
Mr. Stutzman. Seventy?
Mr. Kelley. Yes.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Madden.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. MADDEN
Mr. Madden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank you for
allowing the American Legion to speak on the DoL VETS' Jobs for
Veterans State Grant Program.
Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan wars face an unemployment
rate of 15.2 percent, two-thirds higher than the national
average, confirmed reports. These men and women are
experiencing the worst recession in decades and are fighting
against a competitive environment in the corporate workforce.
They have sacrificed 4, 6, 10, and sometimes 20 years of
military service for their country and should receive high-
quality services from individuals who are dedicated to disabled
and other eligible veterans' prosperity.
The essential role of DoL VETS' Program is to provide the
veterans with the training and demonstrate to the employer the
skills of the veteran and assist the veterans in exhibiting his
or her unique background to the prospective employer.
It is important to understand the role of DVOP and LVERs in
the States that provide intense training and career guidance to
disabled and other eligible veterans. The role that DoL VETS
administers is one that cannot be taken lightly and should
reflect constant success and job placement of veterans across
the country.
In our submitted testimony, we have highlighted two
specific areas, the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program and
our recommendations. We understand that the Jobs for Veterans
State Grant Program is currently funded by a Continuing
Resolution and the President has recommended funding at $166
million for fiscal year 2012.
The American Legion supports the existing budget proposal,
but questions if the existing implementation of the program
adequately supports the ultimate goal of employing veterans as
the unemployment situation for veterans grows more dire.
The Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program is designed to
provide advanced or intensive services to veterans seeking
employment. These services are supposed to go beyond what
nonveterans would receive when seeking employment through State
employment centers, yet analysis of 2009 performance data
indicated only 22 percent of veterans received these critical
services.
With the rising unemployment number for veterans, this
calls into question the effectiveness of the State Grant
Program. Are the American people really getting the return on
investment?
Taking a look in Nevada, we noticed the State Grant Program
funding increased in the years 2008 to 2011, but Nevada is
still suffering and led the country in terms of numbers of
unemployed. Nevada established a 65 percent goal for veterans
securing employment, but fell short with only 47 percent of
veterans securing employment.
In addition, the same 65 percent goal for nonveterans was
met with 49 percent of nonveterans securing employment. Not
only did veterans fare worse, but were additional resources
available for them through the State Grant Program?
So with a uniquely focused program aimed at helping
veterans, veterans' employment was no greater than the usual
employment program for nonveterans.
The American Legion supports the Jobs for Veterans State
Program, but suggests the following the recommendations:
One, fully fund the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program.
Two, transfer all DVOP and LVERs from the State agencies to
DoL VETS for greater supervision and oversight.
Three, adjust staffing levels to meet the needs of the
State veterans' community and not merely the fiscal needs of
the State.
Four, initiate a U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) investigation on the Jobs for Veterans State Grant
Program to ensure the program is properly serving eligible
veterans.
Five, hire veterans for DVOP and LVERs' positions and
require them to only serve disabled and other veterans.
Six, ensure DVOP and LVERs are being trained in time.
These six recommendations are based on the American Legion
resolutions, which are passed during our National Executive
Committee meetings and our National Convention.
The American Legion would like to thank the Chairman,
Ranking Member for allowing the American Legion to speak on the
DoL VETS State Grant Program.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer
any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears on p. 75.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Madden.
Mr. Weidman.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN
Mr. Weidman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to appear here today. This is a subject that is near and dear
to my heart.
And I ran in the 1990s, late 1980s and the early 1990s what
was then the second largest DVOP, LVER Program in the country
in the State of New York at the Department of Labor.
And we labored mightily to give veterans priority of
service in all of the services that we delivered. And for a
time, we succeeded, but the problem is with the program
nationwide is that there are no incentives for good
performance. It is not necessarily disincentives, but it does
not matter whether they do a good job or not.
Some States like South Carolina as an example do a fabulous
job. Other States, primarily big States, do a terrible job and
they get the same amount of money whether they do a terrible
job or a great job.
Many of the State workforce development agencies, frankly,
are using the VETS Program as a cash cow and that is why you
have the admin overhead of over 30 percent. As the number of
Wagner-Peyser staff goes down and the VETS' staff stay
relatively stable, then a greater percentage of the light bill,
the everything else gets charged off against the VETS' staff.
And, frankly, there is no necessity of having DVOPs and
LVERs be in the job service office anymore. The job listings
are not kept on index cards anymore. They are on the computer.
Most of the jobs that exist within a State are not even listed
on the State Public Labor Exchange if, in fact, they have one.
They are listed on job boards.
So there are number of things that Vietnam Veterans of
America would suggest need to be done here to get the bang for
the buck that this Committee and the whole Congress is looking
for.
One, we are determined and our founding principle is never
again shall one generation of American veterans abandon
another. And make no mistake about it, when we came home, we
were abandoned. We were on our own if, in fact, we did not meet
with outright hostility including in the economic marketplace.
So we need to do much better by this generation of young
people.
Secondly is the Public Labor Exchange of making the grants
to the States is based on a model that no longer exists. And
that is why I say there is no reason for those people to be in
a job service office. Frankly, you can have them report to the
DVET, to the Director of Veterans' Employment and Training, for
the State of Iowa, for the State of Indiana, for the State of
Minnesota, et cetera, and you measure them on their outcomes,
which means placements.
Currently, there is a totally dishonest system that takes--
if four or five of you all file for unemployment, you
automatically are registered for the employment services and
if, in fact, the employment development agency does not do a
darn thing for the four of you, but you get a job on your own
and you show up in the unemployment insurance (UI) tax report
for the next quarter, they run their database for those signed
up for the job service against the database of the Social
Security numbers of those who are paying into, as a percentage
of their pay, into the unemployment insurance trust fund. And
they take a positive placement. They call that obtained
employment. I call that dishonest. So we need a system to
measure outcomes that is real.
The last thing I want to say is that in the past, everybody
has tried to kid themselves about this program, that it can do
everything for all people. In fact, it cannot. The reason why
they are not doing the intensive case management is the DVOP
and LVERs see every vet who walks through the door. That is
why. That is why they do not have time for what they should be
concentrating on is the young vets returning within 4 years of
discharge or demobilization, on disabled vets, particularly
those who are 30 percent or more, and even more particularly on
those who are profoundly disabled and those vets most at risk
of being on the street.
And if they only do those three things for 1,800 to 2,000
staff members, that is a hell of a job. That is really a hell
of a job because you are talking about what, a million and a
half people now, Mr. Walz, who have rotated through Afghanistan
and Iraq? You are talking about homeless up to a quarter
million in a given year. You are talking about out of three
million disabled vets service-connected of whom maybe a million
are trying to look for work.
So it is a situation today where you have to make the tough
choices. You hear that a lot around the halls of this August
body, but the tough choice here is to concentrate, we would
suggest, on those three groupings, one, and then, two, make
Wagner-Peyser do their doggone job. They are supposed to give
priority to veterans' service, priority services to veterans
whether or not there is a DVOP or LVER in the office or not.
And they do not do it.
So it is time to get the bang for the buck by holding the
State workforce development agencies accountable and to give
Ray Jefferson control of his troops so he can accomplish the
mission that is outlined in Title 38.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears on p. 78.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Weidman.
First of all, Secretary Jefferson, a quick question, one
thing that came up here by Mr. Kelley and also was mentioned by
Ms. Elsey as well, the Workforce Investment Act.
Could you give us further data on veterans' participation
in those particular programs? Is that possible to do that?
Mr. Jefferson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
And I do not care which gentleman wants to answer the
question. What is a better use of the $165 million requested
for the State Grant Program? Would it be better used to fund
the roughly 2,000 DVOPs and LVERs to place veterans in jobs or
to fund direct training services for unemployed veterans to
give them the skills for better paying jobs?
Mr. Weidman. I will start off. The groups that I outlined,
those most in need, need intensive person-to-person services.
And you do not have to be--I mean, one of the places where
there should be a DVOP is in every single VET center team in
the country including the rural vans that are going out in the
rural areas. And that would solve a lot of the contact and
stuff done in the local areas for employment services.
But if they are not Federal employees, then I would suggest
that we are not ever going to get the bang for the buck the way
the thing is set up now.
Mr. Stutzman. But, Mr. Weidman, you had mentioned something
about giving the States more authority or more responsibility.
Could you follow-up on that a little bit further on what you
said in your testimony.
Mr. Weidman. If you look at everything that a DVOP is
supposed to do under Title 38, what you would say is that on
the seventh day, he rested. It is impossible. Nobody can do all
that stuff.
But I want to tell you that what Mr. Kelley was talking
about, it is not because DVOPs do not try and do that because
the majority of them do and do it on their own time no matter
how much they are punished because they cannot get out of the
office during the week because they are being sat on. And it is
the office manager precluding people from doing their jobs.
It is the half-time DVOPs and half-time LVERs and this is
confirmed by my colleagues around the country over a long
period of time. Half-timers, you are lucky if you get 1 day a
week. That is not half time, but that is about what you get.
Mr. Stutzman. Because they are focused on other folks other
than just veterans; is that correct?
Mr. Weidman. It does not mean the office manager is
necessarily anti vet.
Mr. Stutzman. Right, right.
Mr. Weidman. You have enough staff to see about half the
number of people walking through the door. So what happens in
the end is they process people instead of placing people in
jobs.
And if you ask the workforce development agencies what is
their business that they are in, they will not tell you getting
jobs for people. What they will tell you is we are information
sharing. Well, you cannot ever hold anybody accountable for
that one.
Mr. Stutzman. Is there a problem with DVOPs and LVERs being
required to serve non-veterans by their employment service
supervisors?
Mr. Weidman. I believe, yes.
Mr. Stutzman. Could you further, I mean, explain a little
bit further why you believe.
Mr. Weidman. The whole idea behind the half-time DVOPs,
which incidentally, VVA opposed, in fact even half-time LVERs.
When I went to New York and took over that program, the first
thing I did was grandfather the half-time LVERs in and from
that point on only hired full-time LVERs because I knew that we
were not getting the bang for the buck from those people.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Mr. Weidman. And if there was not enough in some of the
very small offices to have a full-time LVER, then had people
alternate 3 days one place, 2 days another, the same person
instead of splitting it between personnel.
And the DVETS only have the travel money to investigate and
do a site visit at each office in their State once every 2
years, once every 2 years. They cannot even do an effective
desk audit, meaning looking at the computers, with the way the
system has deteriorated in most States. So what that means is
that the cat only comes around once every 24 months and a lot
of play can go on by the mice in the other 23.
Mr. Stutzman. Is there any flexibility pertaining to rural
areas versus urban or suburban areas in part time versus full
time for vets or for the States currently or not?
Mr. Weidman. I think there is flexibility that people are
taking, but in some cases, they are taking it as license. Some
States do a pretty good job and I used South Carolina, I think
South Dakota does a pretty good job, and a number of others
around the country. But in the large States, it often
deteriorates into what I said before, people processing and
merely talking to somebody does not mean that you have done
something to help them land a job.
Mr. Stutzman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Kelley. I would like to go back to the original
question of, is this the best place to spend money or should we
put it somewhere else.
Until we study and understand what I have identified as the
five major issues, I do not think VFW will make a statement one
way or the other. We need to understand what is broken and if
it can be fixed. If it can be fixed, we should fix it because
building a new monster is not always the best way to solve a
problem. If we have a problem with the existing, we should work
to fix it first before we try to say, ah, it is broken, let's
build something new and not really understand what we should be
achieving.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Madden or Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Madden. Sure. I think the American Legion has a
resolution which defines to make sure that DVOPs and LVERs are
performing the duties that they are assigned and is
specifically against additional public assistance.
Mr. Kelley eloquently said that we cannot really comment on
whether the new machine would be a better machine or fixing the
new one is going to be the correct fix. We just need to make
sure that the people that are designed to do specific jobs are
accomplishing the goals and that there are specific performance
measurements that are there to make sure to keep a correct
amount of oversight.
Mr. Wilson. And Disabled American Veterans has a similar
resolution wherein we believe DVOPs and LVERs should be
utilized for the skills in which they were so well-trained at
NVTI. A lot of time and money was invested in these
individuals. They are experts at what they do and they wish to
do and work, as Mr. Weidman was talking about, sometimes off-
duty hours, providing assistance to veterans. So we are very
supportive of them being focused only on the job that they were
trained to do.
We are hopeful that Secretary Jefferson's efforts are going
to provide new life, stronger reporting, and greater focus on
this problem so they can, in fact, do a better job. So we are
looking forward to his continued success.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. A couple things, I guess. What I have
taken away from your testimony is that, one, funding is flawed
in the way that the States receive their dollars and, two, no
performance measures.
I mean, are those two of the major issues? Have they even
addressed part of the problems that we are seeing?
Mr. Weidman. The third is no accountability mechanism. What
people take seriously is cash American. And in 2000, there was
a bill that was pending before this Subcommittee that would
have developed standards based on actual placements, not on
obtained employments using the UI tax records. And there would
have been a sliding scale and a reduction in the block grants
10 percent a year for 4 years with that ending up with 40
percent of the money allocated being used as incentive grants.
So if you are doing a great job in Indiana, then you get a
bonus. If you are doing a great job in Iowa, you get a bonus.
If folks in an unnamed State are doing a terrible job, then
they do not get a bonus. And it was defeated because people
said there would be
layoffs.
In fact, the attrition rate of DVOPs is 17 percent per year
roughly. It varies a little bit each year. Why? Because they
are all service-connected disabled vets. And for LVERs, the
attrition rate is between 12 and 14 percent a year. So we could
have done that and nobody hit the street by reallocating. But
we all do what we have to do. And as a Member of Congress, you
do the things you absolutely have to do.
WIA is a good example. WIA, there is terrible veteran
participation because nobody is monitoring it. Nobody is
looking at the percentage of it.
And the gentleman from California talked about TAP. The
Marines, 100 percent of the Marines go through TAP. Why?
Commandant said you will and he put it in the officer
efficiency ratings for the commanders of Marine facilities. If
the Army, if Secretary McHugh and the Army Chief of Staff did
it, then the same thing would be true for the Army. So I would
suggest that on all sides, if it is not going to affect
directly people's rice bowl, they will do what they have to do
to keep things going first. And the problems with VETS is we
are always dead last in those priorities at the State agency
level.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to begin by thanking all of our panelists for
the sacrifices each one of you has made on behalf of our
country.
But I want to follow-up on this problem of disparity of
outcomes between the States because it will not surprise you to
know this is not unique to veterans' issues.
I served on the Health Subcommittee as we struggled with a
very, very complex health care reform bill. And one of the
biggest problems we have in Medicare is an inefficient system
where we can identify high pockets of per patient Medicare
spending with no direct correlation to any additional medical
need.
And we penalize States like mine and Mr. Walz's who finish
in the top 10 percent in quality patient outcomes and they are
in the bottom 10 percent in Medicare reimbursement per patient.
And so what I want to hear from all of you is what ideas do
you have beyond simply putting in incentives for the high-
performing States. Mr. Weidman, you said that you do not pay
them a bonus, but I think that we maybe need to consider
penalizing them if they fail to meet certain objectives because
the whole point of these programs is to accomplish the very
important purpose of employing veterans and making them
successful in their ultimate mission.
So I would be interested in hearing from all of you if you
have ideas on how this system of accountability can be
improved, what type of metrics would be necessary to hold
States accountable and what sort of remedies you suggest to get
the type of results we all want to see.
Mr. Kelley. I think that is a two-part question. Currently
the Grants Program reserves 10 percent of the funds for
incentives. However, 18 of the States do not accept those even
if they are high performers, either because of legislative or
statutory reasons or because unions say our employees will not
receive that.
So that is an issue that needs to be addressed is that
incentives are there, but they are not allowed to be
implemented in 18 of the States. So a third of the States are
not receiving that.
Mr. Braley. And, Mr. Kelley, could you provide the
Committee with further information on those justifications you
just identified to help us get a better understanding of the
real world problem?
Mr. Kelley. Yes, I will.
[Mr. Kelley subsequently provided the following
information:]
Current labor laws in those 18 States prevent State employees
from receiving bonuses for job performance. These are laws
enacted and enforced by each of the States or through the labor
unions in which the State employees belong.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley. The other issue is performance measures. We
cannot say that you are doing great and you are doing poorly
without really solid performance measures. Our performance
measure right now is how many placements did you have. And as
Mr. Weidman has said that there are ways to make it look like
you have very high performance measures. So maybe the poor
performers are being honest in their reporting and the ones who
are reporting high success rates are taking the more dishonest
route. So we do not understand. So we cannot say build an
incentive this way because we do not understand the procedure
that is taking place now.
Mr. Weidman. What I was going to say is that really we are
out of time. Your predecessors on this Committee have been
having hearings about this going back until the beginning of
these two Wars that we are still engaged in.
We are 9 years, 9\1/2\ years since the first young ranger
was killed in Afghanistan. And I know his mom. She now is
devoting her life and the American Gold Star Mothers are
getting back to their original intent, which is advocacy for
the living, that their son did not make it, but they are going
to take care of their sons' buddies indirectly by doing
advocacy for effective veterans' services whether in health
care or anything else.
For the payoff, if you will, of everything that the Vet
Centers do, of everything that the hospitals do, that other
treatment programs do, it should all be--the litmus test is the
ability to obtain and sustain meaningful employment at a decent
wage. That should be the litmus test for every doggone
veterans' program.
No matter what your disability is, is the highest
functioning level possible and that is what the covenant
between the people who put their lives on the line is with the
people of the United States. It is deeper than a contract. It
is a covenant in a biblical sense. And to do everything humanly
possible to make them as whole again as possible and if that
does not entail helping folks get and keep a job through
supportive services, then we are blowing the ball game. At this
point----
Mr. Braley. Let me just interrupt you. I am about to run
out of time and I wanted to followup on another concern you
identified and that is this whole problem we run into all the
time of interoperability, the inability of various agencies at
the Federal, State, and local level to communicate with each
other.
And I believe, Mr. Weidman, you talked about this in terms
of the job board postings and the inability to get information
from one agency to a State agency and make sure that is
distributed to the people who are going to be making the hiring
decisions.
I would be interested in the panel's comments on what we
can do, what ideas we can do to address those problems and
eliminate them.
Mr. Weidman. Well, I am not sure how you are going to
eliminate it about the job service. In terms of the
computerized job listings, the last Administration eliminated
that national job board that was publicly funded. So now you
have the private job boards, some of which like vetjobs.com are
very effective, but it is not comprehensive any longer.
And my reason for going into that, and I apologize for
going over long, Congressman, but it is that we have been at
this for a long time and are finally fed up. We cannot wait any
longer to do right by the young people coming home today. And
that is why we say Federalize them.
We have been trying to make that inexact State, Federal
relationship work intensively through this Committee since
1998. And it is not just VVA. It is all the veterans'
organizations and it is still not any better. So it is either
come up with real accountability or move to Federalize them
because asking them to do the right thing just has not worked.
Mr. Braley. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis [presiding]. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Johnson from Ohio, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
And, gentlemen, thank you for being here with us today.
I heard some of the testimony just a few minutes ago about
overhead and I am a little concerned about that.
Do you believe that allowing some States to spend up to
nearly 50 percent of their State grant money on overhead is a
good use of resources, especially in this economy, and on
behalf of our veterans?
Mr. Kelley. On behalf of VFW, no, it is not a good use of
resources.
Mr. Madden. The American Legion completely agrees it is not
a good use of resources.
Mr. Weidman. It is not a good use of resources, but it is
not that they are perpetuating fraud on the Feds. They are
following the guidelines of A17 from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in terms of allocation of overhead of the
office.
Mr. Johnson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Weidman. And that is how it ended up that way.
Mr. Johnson. It seems to me this money ought to be going
more directly toward supporting the veterans and not in
overhead. You know, that is my personal opinion.
What about the VETS-100 reporting system? Do you think it
is meeting its intended purpose and, if not, how can we improve
that?
Mr. Weidman. This Committee has had two hard-hitting
oversight hearings and nothing has changed at Office of Federal
Contract Compliance. There are still pilots who lost their job
within the last 4 or 5 years ago who are still waiting for
adjudication of their claims under SCJL.
The system flat does not work. There are two things that
they are doing now that are wrong. One is they are not really
processing claims and complaints. If you have to wait 5 years,
it is useless, number one.
And number two is they are doing 5,000 site visits on
employers a year and if they fine them for something Mickey
Mouse, there are a lot of employers who feel that they are
being unfair in that and that their sole purpose there is to
fine employers instead of going after the people who have
really violated the law intended by Mr. Solomon when he
sponsored that legislation that led to the filing of the VETS-
100 report.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Now I recognize Mr. Walz, my good friend from Minnesota.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
You look good in that chair too. Your father would be
proud.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you all again for being here. I apprec
iate it.
And my colleagues are asking some very pointed and good
questions. I very much appreciate this.
I think it is the cultural studies teacher in me. I am
going to back, back up to that 40,000 foot level.
Why are so many young vets unemployed? What do you guys
think? You talk to them.
Mr. Wilson. From the Disabled American Veterans'
perspective, we are very concerned about their transition from
the military. Secretary Jefferson is working towards a revised
Transition Assistance Program. We are very supportive of
revisions to TAP. That is key.
When I was a squadron commander in Iceland, we had a
Transition Assistance Program there. I wanted to make sure it
was viable, worked well. I sat in and watched the process work.
And it was effective.
When I was retiring, however, from active duty, I decided
to go again, and I was amazed at the amount of information that
the VA representative provided me in 1 hour. It was like trying
to drink from a fire hose. We have heard that analogy before.
You leave thirsty. I did. I thought the delivery of services
was poor. Does it need to be revamped? Absolutely. Absolutely.
And so I am pleased to see that happening now and we are very
much involved in that process.
The other issue continues to be the idea of transferability
of skills. I do job searches periodically looking at how other
States are looking to hire veterans. When you key in the words,
military transition, for a job search, you get security officer
jobs.
I was in the military. We were all in the military. None of
us, I do not believe, were security personnel. I was a
personnel officer and an audiovisual specialist when I was
enlisted, nothing about security.
But civilian employers, being unfamiliar, often think if
you are military, you must be able to carry a weapon and you
must be able to be a security person. Certainly veterans are
able to do much more.
The only people who can leave the military now and readily
get a job in the civilian sector are nurses and nurse
practitioners, physicians, air traffic controllers, and those
who happen to work in the information technology area, you
know. Everybody else, you have to go and get licensure or
certification, be re-blued, if you will, through other studies
on your own. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment helps
veterans working towards that. Much more needs to be done.
I would encourage the Committee's followup on ways to
incentivize licensure and certification programs so various
credentialing agencies will work with veterans as they
transition out and provide them expedited assistance allowing
them to move not from a journeyman level in the military to an
apprentice level in a union, but from journeyman to journeyman.
And with dialogue, through this august body's leadership, I am
sure that is entirely possible and we look forward to that
dialogue.
Thank you.
Mr. Kelley. I believe there is a bit of a cultural change.
When you go into the military, you are civilian. They spend
anywhere from 6 to 13 weeks training you to be something new.
And when you leave boot camp, you are a different person than
when you went in. You have a different world's perspective. You
dress differently. You look different. You speak differently.
When you transfer back to civilian life after several years,
you still speak differently. You still look different. You
still talk differently.
So when you apply for a job and you are talking in military
terms, civilians do not understand it. When you sit at an
interview table and you are at the position of attention, they
think this person is a little too rigid. And we need to figure
out a way to reintegrate veterans back into being civilians.
And it is getting them to get back to that civilian feeling of
culture, I think, that will help bridge some of that gap.
And I think it can be done through the TAP Program, but it
needs to be more intensive. It is more along the lines of the
two and a half day program that they started in 2010 that is
sitting them down and showing them where good employers are at
and what skills you need to have, find those gaps that you have
in your education and training and show you where you need to
go to get those filled.
But also work on resume building that does not have
military acronyms in it, that explains in civilian terms what
your military qualifications were, and provide them an
opportunity to sit down in a mock interview so they can learn
what civilian employers look for during an interview and not
what the promotion board expected from them, the way they acted
when they were in the military.
Mr. Madden. We believe that it is important for veterans to
be hired. I think the 18 and 24, this Operation Iraqi Freedom/
Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) two groups that are not
being hired or having a problem being employed, there are two
different types. There are ones that might have an education
that are enlisted and then there are those that do not have an
education.
For those that do not have an education, they might decide
once they exit the military that I am going to go ahead and get
my 4-year degree or I am going to go ahead and get my
vocational degree or there are those that already have it and
move on it and might have a little bit of a lesser problem
being employed.
What we should be focusing on is making sure these
individuals know what opportunities are available to them. They
need to understand that they need to get their education if
they want to work in a professional environment or they need to
get vocational training.
Regarding licensing and credentialing, there are three main
barriers. Usually it is either they can move into the State
regulations or State licensing credentials and automatically
get it, but that differs from State to State. There are
different stakeholders that are involved in that. Not everyone
can go to California and get their FAA license or their
airplane and pilot's license based on their military
occupational specialty (MOS).
What we want to make sure is that these veterans are given
the opportunity and that we bring together these stakeholders
that have a stake in what would make their decision of their
license and credentialing in each different State. So if we can
provide that for them, bridge that gap that they might have if
they do not have the time to necessarily go to a 4-year
education because they might have children, they might have a
family, we want to make sure they are given those opportunities
so that they can become gainfully employed as soon as possible,
become productive members and taxpayers in the U.S. Government.
Mr. Weidman. We spend well over $1 million to train people
when they come into the military. Some of that is through basic
training. And for some MOSs we spend a heck of a lot more than
$1 million to train them. We spend $3 million to train counsel
over here and, you know, look how that turned out.
I am teasing Mr. Brinck who was a great pilot.
The point is when they get out, we should utilize that
experience. And one of the things is that the certification and
skills that the States and the military, there is equal fault
on both sides.
I will use one example that I know for a fact has to do
with the Navy teaching people how to be welders. If they just
did a couple more steps, they would be qualified to get
licensed as welders in the majority of States. But the Navy
would not do it because they said we do not need those skills.
So there has to be some modification both of the State
entities that do licensure and of the military coming together
to modify a little bit so that when people come out, they come
out with readily marketable skills.
One way you can get the States to the table is, say if you
want to receive Federal funds in any school or in your State in
any kind of an entity, if you take Federal funds, then you have
to participate in terms of granting credits and then define
what those credits are so you do not have to take it all over
again if you already have the skill.
In other words, to allow people to come in and challenge
the exam. And if they pass the exam, then they go forward based
on the expertise that they acquired in the military. If they do
not pass the exam, then they do not go forward. But it is crazy
to spend Federal money to train people twice.
Mr. Walz. I agree. The system in Minnesota, we provided
some funding for them to start doing this program. I think we
are back to the seamless transition issue. It goes on both
sides.
I will leave one last anecdote, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is
you are right. It is not just the private sector. We have an
issue and it is statistically horrifying. The number of
security clearances that are denied by Homeland Security and
other agencies where our warriors could come back and work, but
because they are deemed a risk because they were in the war
zone for a certain amount of time, these adjudicators are
denying them security clearance. Just the people you would want
to work in Homeland Security, FBI, and other things are being
denied over a security clearance issue, which is a
credentialing issue for those jobs.
And we put an amendment in the National Defense
Authorization to just school them on what it means to be in a
combat zone because many of these are civilian adjudicators on
the security clearance and if someone should not be named, hold
it on the other side of the house. And so we still have this
problem.
So I appreciate your insights into this and we have to get
this fixed. Lots of problems stem from a veteran not being
employed. This turns down into a spiral that is life long,
ruins lives, costs us a lot of money.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
I have one last question for the entire panel. Do you have
a position on having all TAP briefings currently conducted by
DVOPs and LVERs transferred to contract instructors so that
DVOPs and LVERs can better focus on finding veterans job
opportunities?
Mr. Madden. The American Legion does not have a resolution.
Therefore, it does not have a position on the question.
Mr. Wilson. The Disabled American Veterans does not have a
resolution on this matter either, sir.
Mr. Kelley. I am not sure how to answer that. I like having
the LVERs do that task because they are the subject matter
experts. They have been trained. We have paid them to
understand these issues.
But if we are overworking them and they cannot do the other
aspects of their job, then that responsibility should fall
somewhere else. Either hire more LVERs and provide them all the
equal training or if need be, if it is more cost effective, I
suppose contract that out. But I prefer it to stay with the
LVERs because they are the true experts.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Weidman. We would prefer it stay with the LVERs, but
make sure that it is someone who is proficient in public
speaking and getting his or her point across. And they need to
have those to be effective LVERs because they should not be
seeing employers just one on one as the assistant secretary
said here earlier today, but speaking at the Rotary, speaking
at the JCs, speaking at the Kiwanis in order to change the way
in which people are perceiving the young people coming home.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much for your input on that.
I would like to recognize now the Ranking Member for any
closing remarks.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on that comment, Mr. Weidman. One of
the things that is so frustrating, I think, to people is when
we have an opportunity to educate the public, we have an
opportunity to move the ball down the field in addressing this
very acute problem. A lot of times, it is a lack of resources
that deprives people of a greater understanding.
I would challenge each of you to work with us in coming up
with a user friendly program that can be taken to those Kiwanis
Club, Rotary Club, Chamber meetings, and help educate the
broader public about the importance of fulfilling this sacred
honor and how they can be a part of helping us improve these
abysmal statistics. So that is my challenge to you.
I know everyone on this Committee is committed to not being
back in this same position 10 years from now with these same
complaints. And we look forward to working with you to make
that improvement.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. And with that, on behalf of the
Subcommittee, I thank each of you for your testimony and we
look forward to working with you often, of course, in the
future on a wide range of challenging issues facing our
Nation's heroes. Thank you.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good morning.
We are here today to examine the FY 2012 budget for the Department
of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service better known in
the veterans' community as VETS.
It is no secret that veterans are facing difficult times finding
and retaining good-paying jobs. Unemployment rates for veterans in some
age groups significantly exceed the rates for non-veterans of the same
age and that is just not right. I am confident the distinguished
Ranking Member shares that view and I intend to work with Mr. Braley in
a bipartisan manner to improve employment opportunities for veterans.
Interestingly, job vacancies posted online rose 438,000 in January
to nearly 4.3 million according to The Conference Board so there are
literally millions of jobs looking for qualified workers. That begs me
to ask whether veterans have the right skills for today's job market,
and the answer to that may be the key to reducing veteran unemployment
rates.
The media focuses on the 15.2 percent unemployment rate among
veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but in terms of
sheer numbers, older veterans are facing rates of unemployment that
often exceeds their non-veteran peers.
For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics latest data shows that
725,000 or 63 percent of the 1,135,000 unemployed vets are 35-64 yrs
old. Unfortunately, those veterans have little or no access to
veterans' education/training/retraining programs. They are also the
group that tends to have the highest financial obligations like
mortgages and paying for their children's education.
We are all aware of the financial crisis facing this Nation which
means we must redouble our efforts to make best use of the funds
available. That means, what is the best use of the $261million the
President has requested for the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service in fiscal year 2012? How do we increase the skills unemployed
veterans can offer to the job market and then what is the best way to
match veteran qualified job seekers with the right job?
The VETS' budget submission is refreshingly frank in addressing the
State grant program. I quote, ``The program clearly was not fulfilling
its mandated role'' end quote, and I am eager to hear how VETS proposes
to fix their largest program. Having said that, I must admit that I was
disappointed to see that the goal for average salary of veterans placed
by the DVOPs and LVERs staff is only $16, 535 while the national
poverty level for a family of four is about $21,000. Mr. Secretary, I
believe your goal must exceed the poverty level because an eight dollar
an hour job is just not good enough and I hope you will explain to the
Subcommittee why your goal is so low.
I would also recognize President Obama's initiative to increase the
number of veterans employed by the Federal Government. Today, veterans
are approximately 25 percent of the Federal workforce but
unfortunately, outside of VA and DoD, most agencies fall far short of
employing a significant number of veterans. I wish the President every
success in his program and I am sure each of the Members here will call
upon the entire Federal Government to place greater emphasis on hiring
veterans. But I would also note that the private sector offers far more
employment opportunities as evidenced by the Confidence Board's data.
Finally, I welcome today's witnesses and I yield to the
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Braley after which we will hear from
the first panel.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today's hearing, the first hearing for the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity of the 112th Congress, is an important one. As all of you
know, Congress is working hard to balance our budget and reduce the
deficit while at the same time provide much needed services to provide
employment opportunities for veterans.
This hearing will provide us an opportunity to review the U.S.
Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Services (VETS)
budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 and funding for Disabled Veteran
Outreach Program Specialists (DVOP) and the Local Veterans Employment
Representatives (LVER) through State grant programs. VETS oversees six
major employment related initiatives for veterans, these are: are Jobs
for Veterans State Grants, Transition Assistance Program, Homeless
Veterans' Reintegration Program, Veterans' Workforce Investment
Program, National Veteran' Employment and Training Services Institute,
and the Federal Management. I look forward to hearing how these
programs will remain fully operational and effective with the new
budget request. I am also interested in learning more about the
Transition Assistant Program and Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Program initiatives as these two had a budget request increase for
Fiscal Year 2012.
I know that our distinguished panelists will highlight some of the
deficiencies of the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and
the Local Veterans Employment Program Representatives and I look
forward to hearing their recommendations on how we can improve these
services while keeping a good budget. The main purpose of DVOPs and
LVERs is to provide employment services to veterans to help relieve the
high unemployment rates among veterans. We should do everything we can
to ease the transition of veterans from the military to the civilian
world. This hearing is not just about problems and fixes but also about
assessing the effectiveness of DVOPs and LVERs in today's economy. Our
first priority is to be certain that all our veterans are being
properly served by these programs.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training Service,
U.S. Department of Labor
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness before the
Subcommittee and speak to you on the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
budget request for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
and the performance of the State grant program that funds the Disabled
Veteran Outreach Program specialist (DVOP) and the Local Veterans
Employment Representative (LVER) programs.
VETS proudly serves veterans and transitioning servicemembers by
providing resources and expertise to assist and prepare them to obtain
meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities and protect
their employment rights. We do that through four major programs that
are an integral part of Secretary Solis's vision of ``Good Jobs for
Everyone.''
The Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG);
The Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops
(TAP);
The Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP); and
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA).
Since being confirmed, I have incorporated stakeholder feedback
into five aspirations that VETS will pursue during my tenure as
Assistant Secretary in order to achieve our desired outcomes:
1. Providing veterans and transitioning servicemembers a voice in
the workplace by serving as the National focal point for veterans'
employment and training.
2. Creating a path to good jobs for veterans through increased
engagement with employers, with a particular emphasis on the private
sector.
3. Helping servicemembers transition seamlessly into meaningful
employment and careers while emphasizing success in emerging industries
such as green jobs.
4. Facilitating a return to work for servicemembers and protecting
vulnerable populations through boosting USERRA's impact by increasing
awareness of and commitment to it.
5. Investing in VETS' team members and emphasizing continuous
improvement to further develop their potential and better serve our
clients.
Over the past 1\1/2\ years, VETS has prioritized efforts to
transform TAP, implement an employer outreach program, reach out to
rural veterans, and incorporate best practices into USERRA
investigations.
This year, we will be reviewing the JVSG program to obtain a
current assessment of its efficacy. The program is now over 8 years
old, and, to date, VETS has not conducted a comprehensive, formal
review to determine what improvements are needed. To that end, our
State Directors have begun discussions with their State Veteran
Coordinator counterparts to gain a clearer picture of how the JVSG
program is helping veterans gain meaningful employment and whether any
improvements are needed to help States achieve their outcome measures.
We are particularly interested in the effectiveness of LVER employer
outreach strategies, and whether it would be beneficial for DoL/VETS to
assist States in developing relationships with large, national employer
associations.
We also intend to create an online ``Community of Practice'' that
leverages social networking so that DVOPs and LVERs can: 1) post
questions and topics they need assistance with; and 2) share solutions
and resources. Professional communities benefit tremendously when they
have a way to share information with each other in a timely manner.
Indeed, the ``Community of Practice'' model was one of the Harvard
Business Review's ``Breakthrough Ideas for 2006'' and the example
profiled was the U.S. Army's ``Company Command.com'' (http://
cc.army.mil/index.htm).
In addition, VETS continues to strengthen grant oversight of the
JVSG. On February 18, 2011, DoL published a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in the Federal Register (http:// frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/
cgi�bin / PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID
=A50xoy/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve) proposing a rule to implement a
uniform national threshold entered employment rate (EER) for veterans
applicable to State employment service delivery systems. The Department
undertakes this rulemaking in accordance with the Jobs for Veterans
Act, which requires the Department to implement that threshold rate by
regulation. The purpose of this Proposed Rule is to establish the
uniform national threshold EER for use in determining deficiencies in
States' performance in assisting veterans to meet their employment
needs. The Proposed Rule also explains how the threshold will be used
in the process of identifying those States to be reviewed for a
potential determination of deficiency, and it identifies certain
factors, in addition to the threshold, that will be included in the
Department's review to determine deficiency.
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
For FY 2012, the Department is requesting $261,036,000 for VETS, an
increase of $4,909,000 over FY 2010. This increase will (1) support the
Department of Defense's goal of increased participation by
transitioning National Guard and Reserve Component servicemembers at
the Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops (TAP), and (2)
provide additional employment services grants for homeless veterans
through the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP).
The mission of VETS is a direct reflection of the Nation's
responsibility to meet the employment, training and job security needs
of Americans who served in uniform. VETS helps veterans obtain positive
employment outcomes through services provided at One-Stop Career
Centers and other locations. Grants are provided to State Workforce
Agencies (SWA) to support staff dedicated to serving veterans. VETS
ensures that veterans who require special assistance due to
disabilities or other barriers to employment receive appropriate
services based on their needs. VETS also provides funding, through the
HVRP and Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), to
organizations that serve eligible veterans.
The U.S. military services annually discharge approximately 160,000
active duty servicemembers and approximately 110,000 Reserve and
National Guard servicemembers. VETS expects greater demand for
transition assistance and employment services for veterans over the
next few years. FY 2012 should be the first year of implementation of a
new, completely reengineered and transformed TAP employment workshop
that will encompass the most significant changes to TAP in its 19-year
history. This will be accomplished via the following six components:
(1) pre-work, (2) best practice content, (3) experiential facilitation,
(4) after-TAP support, (5) an online e-learning platform, and (6)
performance metrics.
VETS protects the employment and reemployment rights of veterans
and members of the National Guard and Reserve Forces through two major
labor laws. Under the provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), VETS ensures that servicemembers
can serve on active duty without harm to their employment status. Under
the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), VETS ensures that
veterans obtain the preferences in Federal hiring that agencies are
required to apply.
VETS meets its responsibilities through budget activities that
directly support the Secretary's vision of ``Good Jobs for Everyone''
through the strategic goal of ``Prepare Workers for Good Jobs and
Ensure Fair Compensation.'' The VETS budget is formulated through six
budget activities described below:
Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG)
The FY 2012 request of $165,394,000 will support Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists, Local Veterans' Employment
Representative (LVER) staff, and respond to exigencies. The JVSG helps
veterans find good jobs by providing employment services at One-Stop
Career Centers and other locations. DVOPs and LVERs are State employees
whose salaries and benefits are funded through formula grants to the
States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam. At
the funding requested, it is expected that 624,000 veterans will
receive employment services through this program.
DVOPs and LVERs are primarily stationed at the One-Stop Career
Centers where they provide intensive services to veterans and outreach
to employers. In addition, VETS is collaborating with the Department of
Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
service by stationing DVOP specialists at VA Regional Offices and other
points of entry to help VR&E participants find good jobs. DVOPs are
also stationed at military medical treatment facilities to provide one-
on-one employment services to wounded warriors through the DoL
REALifelines Program.
Many DVOPs and LVERs are outstationed with, or in support of, other
VETS programs and are critical to the success of those programs. This
includes:
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program
Veterans' Workforce Investment Program
Transition Assistance Program
Reintegration of Incarcerated Veterans
Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
In FY 2012, VETS requests that the Transition Assistance Program be
funded at $9,000,000, renewing our FY 2011 request to fund this as a
separate activity. This is $2,000,000 above the level for FY 2010. VETS
anticipates increased demand for TAP Employment Workshops in connection
with the Department of Defense's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program,
and in providing workshops to retiring Reserve and National Guard
members, which represent two populations not fully supported in
previous years.
This funding level helps servicemembers and their spouses make the
initial transition from military service to the civilian workplace with
less difficulty. TAP for active servicemembers consists of
comprehensive two and one-half day employment workshops at military
installations nationwide and at select military installations overseas.
Professionally-trained workshop facilitators present the workshops.
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP)
The FY 2012 request is $39,330,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over
the FY 2010 level. This increase should allow for an additional 11
grants serving an additional 1,710 participants. Up to $4,000,000 of
the requested amount will be to serve the reintegration of incarcerated
veterans. This request will also support separate grants totaling
$5,300,000 for female homeless veterans and homeless veterans with
families.
HVRP grants are awarded competitively to State and local workforce
investment boards, State agencies, local public agencies, and private
non-profit organizations, including faith-based organizations and
neighborhood partnerships. HVRP grantees provide an array of services
utilizing a holistic case management approach that directly assists
homeless veterans and provides training services to help them to
successfully transition into the labor force.
At the funding level requested, it is expected that 26,710 veterans
will receive employment services funded through 162 grantees.
Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP)
The FY 2012 request of $9,641,000 will allow VETS to award
competitive grants geared toward focused training, re-training and
employment opportunities for recently separated veterans, veterans with
service-connected disabilities, veterans with significant barriers to
employment and veterans who served on active duty during campaign badge
wars, expeditions or campaigns. These grants are awarded to meet the
needs of employers for qualified workers in high demand industries,
particularly those occupations requiring a license or certification.
In FY 2009, the Veterans' Workforce Investment Program was
refocused to provide training and employment services in green energy
occupations as envisioned in the Green Jobs Act of 2007. Grants were
awarded competitively to 17 grantees in FY 2009, and an additional five
grants were awarded in FY 2010.
At the funding level requested, it is expected that 4,600 veterans
will receive employment services funded through 22 grantees.
National Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI)
The FY 2012 request of $2,449,000 will allow NVTI to continue to
provide training to Federal staff and veteran service providers.
NVTI was established to ensure a high level of proficiency and
training for staff that provide veterans employment services. These
staff members include the DVOPs and LVERs funded through the Jobs for
Veterans State Grants budget activity, the VETS Federal staff who are
trained in USERRA and veterans Preference enforcement, and all
facilitators for the Transition Assistance Program Employment
Workshops.
NVTI provides this training in competency based training courses.
The primary objective is to increase the service providers'
productivity through increased knowledge. The NVTI effort ensures
universality of training services for veterans and all direct client
service providers.
Federal Management
The FY 2012 request of $35,222,000 will provide adequate support
for VETS' planned FTE level of 227.
The Federal Management budget activity supports the management and
oversight necessary to implement the agency's activities, programs and
initiatives, to include the programs contained in the other five budget
activities.
This activity includes: investigation of USERRA claims;
investigation of veterans' Preference complaints; education and
outreach on USERRA and Veterans Preference; grant oversight of the Jobs
for Veterans State Grants; grant oversight of the Homeless Veterans'
Reintegration Program competitive grants; grant oversight of the
Veterans' Workforce Investment Program competitive grants; technical
and managerial oversight of the Transition Assistance Program
Employment Workshops; and technical and contract oversight of the
National Veterans' Training Institute.
Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists (DVOP)and the Local
Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) programs
The Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists (DVOP) program
and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) programs are
known collectively as the Jobs for Veterans State Grants program
(JVSG).
The Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) is a State grant
program started in 1977 and authorized by Section 4103(A) of Title 38,
United States Code. DVOP specialists provide intensive employment
assistance to meet the employment needs of eligible veterans. DVOP
specialists provide intensive services at the One-Stop Career Centers
and at the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
offices. They also provide recovery and employment assistance to
wounded and injured servicemembers receiving care at Department of
Defense military treatment facilities and Warrior Transition Units
through the Recovery & Employment Assistance Lifelines (REALifelines)
program. DVOPs focus their services to special disabled veterans and
disabled veterans. DVOPs also provide services through the Homeless
Veterans' Reintegration Program, Veterans' Workforce Investment
Program, Transition Assistance Program, and Incarcerated Veterans'
Transition Program.
The Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program is a
State grant program authorized by Section 4104, Title 38, United States
Code. LVER staff conduct outreach to employers and engage in advocacy
efforts with hiring executives to increase employment opportunities for
veterans, encourage the hiring of disabled veterans, and generally
assist veterans to gain and retain employment. LVER staff conduct
seminars for employers and job search workshops for veterans seeking
employment, and facilitate the provision of employment, training, and
placement services to veterans by all staff of the employment service
delivery system. In addition, LVER staff maintain cooperative working
relationships with community organizations that provide complementary
services and referral.
In your letter of invitation to testify, you asked a series of
questions. Our responses to those questions follow:
What are the demographics of the veterans who are seeking employment?
For calendar year 2010, there were 22,011,000 veterans in the
country. There were 11,758,000 in the labor force, and of this group,
1,020,000 (8.7 percent) were unemployed. Of the 1,020,000 unemployed,
78 percent are white, 17 percent are black, and 7 percent are Hispanic.
In terms of age, about half are aged 45-64 years.
What are the 10 States with the lowest overall performance in meeting
the common measure goals and what does the Department propose
to improve the performance of those States?
The Department uses three Common Measures to measure the outcomes
experienced by participating job seekers. The first is the Entered
Employment Rate (EER), which is the percent of the participants who are
employed in the quarter after the last quarter in which they received
services. The second measure is the Employment Retention Rate (ERR),
which is the percent of those entering employment who also are employed
in the first and second quarters after entering employment. The third
is Average Earnings, which is the total earnings in the second and
third quarters after the exit quarter for those who are employed in the
first, second, and third quarters after the exit quarter.
Grantees are required to report on a quarterly basis these outcome
measures for both the One-Stop level and the Grant level. The One-Stop
level records the measures for all veterans served by either Wagner-
Peyser funded staff or the JVSG. The One-Stop level outcomes are posted
on the DoL Web site at http://www.dol.gov/vets/vetoutcomes/index.htm.
Chart 1 on page 56 displays the current performance by State.
What are the goals and actual performance for each common measure?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PY 2010 PY 2010 Q1
Measures Target Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entered Employment Rate for Veterans 44.8% 45%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Retention Rate for Veterans 71.2% 75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Earnings for Veterans $16,535 $15,985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entered Employment Rate for Disabled 41.7% 42%
Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Retention Rate for Disabled 70.8% 75%
Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Earnings for Disabled Veterans $16,969 $16,521
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual performance by State is shown on chart 1 on page 56.
What is the President's proposed budget for the Veterans' Employment
and Training Service and what will be the effect(s) of that
funding on each of the common measures?
The President's Budget Request for FY 2012 for the JVSG is
$165,394,000. We do not expect the level of funding to have an impact
upon the Common Measures. These outcome measures are not affected by
the change in funding level, since they are efficiency measures that
reflect the quality of the service, but not the workload or output of
the service. For example, EER measures the percent of participants who
receive a staff assisted service and then achieve employment. It is our
perspective that two factors which have the greatest impact on EER are
the economic conditions within the State and the availability of job
openings than by the level of funding for the program.
How many DVOPs and LVERs will the President's proposed budget support?
For FY 2012, we estimate that the JVSG will support a total of
2,117 DVOPs and LVERs. Under current legislation States have the
ability to adjust the number of DVOP and LVER positions they will
support, as they believe appropriate, for each year.
In FY 2011, the States have projected to support 1,146 DVOP Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) and 971 LVER FTE.
How much Fiscal Year 2010 State grant funding was recovered from the
States and what was done with that funding?
Although VETS must obligate Fiscal Year funds by September 30th of
each year, the State Grants appropriation language allows States to
obligate those same funds through December 31st of each year. Under
VETS current guidance States have until March 31st to liquidate those
funds obligated by December 31st. Therefore, VETS will not be able to
determine the amount of FY 2010 unobligated funds by State until final
financial reports are received in June 2011.
In FY 2009, States returned approximately $2.4 million back to
Treasury. This could partly be attributed to a mid year appropriation
which included an additional $7 million over the previous FY
appropriation.
How many DVOPs and LVERs have not attended training at the National
Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) as required by law? What is
your timeline to have all DVOPs and LVERs attend training at
NVTI?
Under P.L. 109-461, DVOPs and LVERs were required to attend
training at the NVTI within 3 years of appointment to their positions.
NVTI has successfully handled the mandatory training requirement under
the prior (3 year) training window and VETS anticipates that the
ongoing level of staffing changes will continue to be accommodated
under the prior training window and at the current funding level. The
only exceptions are small numbers of DVOP/LVER staff members (e.g. nine
hired in 2006 and fifteen hired in 2007) who have been scheduled for
their mandatory training on more than one occasion but have not been
able to attend. Thus, this issue is not one of training capacity.
Under P.L. 111-275, the time period for attendance at NVTI training
was changed to 18 months. The ability to comply with training
requirements in FY 2012 will largely depend on attrition levels and the
number of new employees.
Which 10 States have the highest administrative overhead and what are
those charges against the grant for each of the 10 States?
Allowable charges are covered in 2 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 225 (i.e., OMB Circular A-87) and can vary by each State's
methodology. VETS has provided additional guidance to the States
through a Veterans' Program Letter requiring States to provide
justification when the forecasted Personal Services plus Personnel
Benefits to grant award total ratio is less than 65 percent.
Chart 2 on page 57 displays the charges from States for FY 2010.
How many Federal staff are assigned to the States and how do they
interact with the State grant program?
VETS has authorized 173 FTE at the State level. As required by the
Jobs for Veterans Act of 2004, each State, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico have a State Director (DVET). Additional staff is
assigned to each State, based upon factors such as the size of the
grant activity in that State. The DVET for Puerto Rico also has
responsibility for the Virgin Islands, and the DVET for Hawaii has
responsibility for Guam.
DVETs serve as the Grant Officer Technical Representatives for the
JVSG. The DVETs work closely with the SWAs providing technical
assistance as necessary and have an integral knowledge of the State's
internal system. They negotiate performance outcome goals on an annual
basis, review and recommend approval of the States annual operating
plans, analyze quarterly performance and financial reports, and provide
appropriate recommendations to meet VETS fiduciary responsibilities in
monitoring the JVSG.
In addition to the basic State grant, what is the total funding
allocated to support the work of the DVOPs and LVERs in the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP)?
In FY 2010, States were funded $2,744,000 to facilitate 2,922 TAP
Employment Workshops. In FY 2011, States requested $2,697,000 to
facilitate 2,639 projected TAP Employment Workshops.
What change(s) are needed to the State grant program to improve the
overall performance of the program?
Earlier in my testimony, I noted that this year, we will be
reviewing the JVSG program to obtain a current assessment of its
efficacy. We also intend to create an online ``Community of Practice''
that leverages social networking so DVOPs and LVERs can post questions
and topics they need assistance with, and share solutions and resources
How many months of unemployment benefits may a veteran receive and
what is the average number of months paid to veterans?
The Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) program
provides benefits for eligible ex-military personnel. In addition,
servicemembers who exhaust UCX benefits are eligible to receive
emergency unemployment compensation. Total weeks of benefits range from
60 weeks to 99 weeks. The law of the State (under which the claim is
filed) determines benefit amounts, number of weeks benefits can be
paid, and other eligibility conditions. The average number of weeks
received varies by State and is not available on a national average.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our programs and
initiatives. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
Chart 1
One-Stop Career Center: Veterans' Performance Outcomes
Period Ending September 30, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entered Employ-ment
State Employ-ment State Retention State Average
Rate Rate Earnings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana 58% Puerto 88% District $22,003
Rico of
Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North 58% Minnesota 81% Alaska $20,937
Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South 58% North 81% Californi $20,822
Dakota Dakota a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa 56% Texas 81% Maryland $18,316
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas 55% South 80% Utah $18,066
Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota 55% Virginia 80% Ohio $18,023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah 55% Alabama 79% Connectic $17,741
ut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri 53% Utah 79% Texas $17,722
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas 52% Wisconsin 79% Wyoming $17,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 52% Idaho 78% New $17,506
Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming 52% Kansas 78% New $17,327
Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia 51% Maine 78% Virginia $17,284
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho 50% Montana 78% Minnesota $17,145
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York 50% Arkansas 77% Colorado $17,116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas 50% Florida 77% Illinois $16,917
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 49% Maryland 77% Massachus $16,644
etts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West 49% New 77% Washingto $16,426
Virginia Hampshir n
e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky 48% Oregon 77% Louisiana $16,303
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland 48% West 77% New York $16,254
Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine 47% Wyoming 77% Idaho $16,180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New 47% Alaska 76% North $15,507
Hampshir Dakota
e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma 47% Kentucky 76% Oregon $15,499
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin 47% Missouri 76% New $15,456
Hampshir
e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska 46% New York 76% Hawaii $15,330
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South 46% Washingto 76% Michigan $15,191
Carolina n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washingto 46% Illinois 75% Virgin $15,079
n Islands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois 45% Louisiana 75% Florida $14,921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississip 45% Oklahoma 75% Montana $14,762
pi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada 45% South 75% Vermont $14,393
Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 45% District 74% Alabama $14,297
of
Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida 44% New 74% Iowa $14,270
Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana 44% Virgin 74% South $14,134
Islands Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New 43% Arizona 73% Kentucky $14,064
Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon 43% Delaware 73% Oklahoma $14,055
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia 42% Indiana 73% Georgia $14,039
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachus 42% Nebraska 73% West $14,036
etts Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska 42% Tennessee 73% Nebraska $13,968
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado 41% Californi 72% Nevada $13,778
a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District 41% Ohio 72% Arizona $13,649
of
Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New 41% Colorado 71% Wisconsin $13,501
Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona 40% Connectic 71% Missouri $13,475
ut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North 40% Hawaii 71% Kansas $13,444
Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont 38% Iowa 71% Maine $13,397
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connectic 37% Nevada 71% Indiana $13,163
ut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware 37% New 70% Delaware $13,124
Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan 36% North 70% Arkansas $13,118
Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Californi 33% Georgia 69% Tennessee $13,112
a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii 33% Massachus 68% North $13,079
etts Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio 33% Michigan 68% South $13,070
Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin 28% Vermont 61% Mississip $11,520
Islands pi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guam NDA Mississip 52% Puerto $8,985
pi Rico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylva NDA Guam NDA Guam NDA
nia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto NDA Pennsylva NDA Pennsylva NDA
Rico nia nia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode NDA Rhode NDA Rhode NDA
Island Island Island
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National 45% National 75% National $15,985
Average Average Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National 44.8% National 71.2% National $16,535
Goal Goal Goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 2
FY 2010 JVSG Administrative Costs of the Top Ten States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Administrative Total Grant Percent of Total
Costs Expenditures Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky $1,065,652 $2,226,479 47.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida $3,501,341 $8,218,376 42.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia $1,849,081 $4,833,016 38.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee $942,626 $2,649,123 35.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas $3,924,085 $11,348,817 34.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi $512,131 $1,484,644 34.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland $925,028 $2,690,852 34.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada $428,131 $1,249,050 34.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico $320,123 $939,762 34.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut $543,445 $1,612,140 33.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Bonnie Elsey, President-Elect, National
Association
of State Workforce Agencies, and Senior Administrative Officer,
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
Executive Summary
The following summarizes NASWA's testimony on the Administration's
Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service and the performance of the Disabled
Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans Employment
Representatives.
Approximately 640,000 veterans were served through the
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives (LVER) in fiscal year 2009. The DVOP and
LVER programs have been successful in assisting veterans to become
gainfully employed.
NASWA is concerned with the ability to increase the
numbers of veterans receiving intensive services from DVOP specialists
without increases in funding. Intensive services are just that--
intensive--and require more time and effort. There is the potential
that increasing the number receiving intensive services could decrease
the quality of that service or decrease core services.
NASWA is concerned that the Performance Outcomes by
State, posted on the VETS Web site, can lead to incorrect assumptions
about a State's performance. The common measure goals should be
adjusted for factors outside the control of the State--taking into
account that a State with a high unemployment rate generally will have
poorer performance than a State with a low unemployment rate.
NASWA recommends language to prohibit States from
imposing furloughs and hiring freezes on staff funded by the JVSG.
Since these are Federal funds, any dollars saved have little positive
impact on States' budgets. Services to our Nation's veterans should not
be negatively impacted because of State budget problems. In fact, not
accepting or spending these funds would seem to negatively impact a
State's budget.
NASWA recommends enhanced efforts are needed to raise
awareness of the DVOP and LVER programs among Human Resource (H.R.)
professionals.
NASWA recommends VETS and JVSG funds should be used to
implement tools to assist in translating military skills, develop
licensing, certification and credentialing systems to better assist the
transition of military members to civilian employment.
NASWA recommends Congressional legislation should
maintain the same definition of a veteran for reporting purposes for
all Federal programs (Wagner-Peyser, JVSG programs, Workforce
Investment Act, etc.).
NASWA recommends USDoL utilize VetCentral, an online
network connecting employers and State workforce agencies, to provide
Federal contractors jobs for States to assist eligible veterans.
Despite recent improvements to the Federal Contractor Job
Listing (FCJL) process, NASWA member States are still unable to
identify all Federal contractors and subcontractors subject to 41 CFR
Part 60-250 and 41 CFR Part 60-300.
NASWA recommends customer satisfaction surveys be used
and the results of those surveys should be part of the LVER Managers'
quarterly reports.
__________
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Association of State Workforce
Agencies (NASWA), I thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the U.S.
Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service and the
performance of the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and
Local Veterans Employment Representatives.
The members of our Association constitute State leaders of the
publicly-funded workforce investment system vital to meeting the
employment needs of veterans through the Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program (DVOP), the Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER),
and the Wagner-Peyser programs. The mission of NASWA is to serve as an
advocate for State workforce programs and policies, a liaison to
Federal workforce system partners, and a forum for the exchange of
information and practices. Our organization was founded in 1937. Since
1973, it has been a private, non-profit corporation, financed by annual
dues from member State agencies and other sources of revenue.
Our members are committed to providing the highest quality of
service to our Nation's veterans, National Guard members and
Reservists. We are focused on our highest priority, serving recently-
separated veterans and disabled veterans. With the war efforts in Iraq
and Afghanistan, this is a critical time to ensure high quality
workforce services are available for those who served our country in
time of war and now are returning to the civilian economy.
Continued support and increased funding of the DVOP and LVER
programs is essential. The U.S. Military services discharge
approximately 160,000 active duty servicemembers and 90,000 Reserve and
National Guard Members annually. We can expect a greater demand for
transition services and employment services for veterans over the next
few years.
Approximately 640,000 participants were served through these
programs in fiscal year 2009, and the target for fiscal year 2010 is to
serve over 650,000. The DVOP and LVER programs have been successful in
assisting veterans to become gainfully employed. It is critical to
maintain the connection of the DVOP and LVER programs with the Wagner-
Peyser systems.
A. FY 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL
The Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget requests $165.3
million for the Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG). This funding
level represents 62 percent of all funding for the U.S. Department of
Labor's (USDoL) Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). The
JVSG fund two programs through formula grants to State Workforce
Agencies: the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local
Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) Program.
The DVOP and LVER specialists provide services primarily through
the Wagner-Peyser Act funded One-Stop Career Centers. DVOP specialists
provide intensive employment assistance to meet the employment needs of
eligible veterans, especially to disabled and economically or
educationally disadvantaged veterans. DVOPs also provide recovery and
employment assistance to wounded and injured servicemembers receiving
care at Department of Defense military treatment facilities and Warrior
Transition Units through the Recovery & Employment Assistance Lifelines
(REALifeLines). DVOPs also work with the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program, Veterans Workforce Investment Program,
Transition Assistance Program, and Incarcerated Veterans Transition
Program.
LVER staff conducts outreach to employers and engages in advocacy
efforts with hiring executives to increase employment opportunities for
veterans, encourage the hiring of disabled veterans, and generally
support veterans in gaining and retaining employment. LVER staff
conducts seminars for employers and job search workshops for veterans
seeking employment, and facilitate the provision of employment,
training, and placement services to veterans by all staff of the
employment service delivery system. In addition, LVER staff maintains
cooperative working relationships with community organizations that
provide complementary services and referrals.
The roles and responsibilities for the Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives changed under
the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), which was enacted in November 2002.
JVA implemented a comprehensive performance accountability system that
included performance measures for the two programs--consistent with
those under the Workforce Investment Act--and enhanced accountability
for veteran services in the one-stop system.
While JVA requires USDoL to include information in its annual
report to Congress on whether veterans are receiving priority and are
being fully served by employment and training programs, questions have
been raised about whether available performance information accurately
reflects services and outcomes for veterans. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) concluded USDoL's data on services and
outcomes for veteran job seekers paint an unclear picture of veterans'
use of employment and training services in the One-Stop system. Despite
the shared use of common performance measures, key employment and
training programs vary in the extent to which their data on veteran
participants are integrated or shared with other programs.
GAO noted while States collect a wide range of performance data on
services and outcomes for veterans, the data reported to USDoL do not
currently include information on outreach to employers, a key LVER
program activity. GAO noted it is difficult to assess outcomes over
time, in part because of frequent changes in States' reporting
requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend data.
Given the performance changes for DVOPs and LVERs under JVA, NASWA
would like further clarification on the Administration's proposed
changes in the FY 2012 budget. Overall, the FY 2012 budget is critical
of JVSG performance data, noting the ``the program clearly was not
fulfilling its mandated role.'' The Administration is planning to
operate the JVSG program differently from prior years as a result of a
``refocusing effort.''
This effort, according to the FY 2012 budget, resulted from a FY
2009 analysis of JVSG performance data indicating while 79 percent of
veteran participants received staff assisted services, only 22 percent
of that was intensive services. The budget notes this is a concern
because the DVOP program was established to provide intensive services
to veterans and USDoL's analysis indicates only 17 percent of all
veteran JVSG participants received intensive services.
In addition, the FY 2012 budget notes it was difficult to
differentiate the outcomes for veteran participants served by DVOPs and
LVERs from those veterans receiving common services provided by Wagner-
Peyser staff in the One-Stop Career Centers because the JVSG had an
Entered Employment Rate (EER) of 62 percent and an Employment Retention
Rate (ERR) of 81 percent. The Wagner-Peyser program had an EER of 3
percentage points lower, and had the same ERR.
The VETS budget for FY 2012 includes a description of refocusing
goals for service delivery. VETS say the refocused service delivery
model will focus JVSG funded staffs on their primary role established
in legislation by:
Demonstrating the JVSG as a specialized program
within a State's overall umbrella of programs providing quality
services to veterans on a priority basis;
Ensuring that veterans receive the following on a
priority basis from Wagner-Peyser funded staff: employment
self-help, mitigated self-help, staff-assisted help and, when
appropriate, intensive services;
Increasing the numbers of veterans receiving
intensive services from a DVOP specialist with a corresponding
increase in the number of veterans entering employment after
receiving intensive services; and
Increasing the numbers of veterans receiving
individualized job development services with a corresponding
increase in the number of veterans entering employment after
receiving those services.
NASWA supports these goals and will work with its members to assist
in meeting them. However, we are concerned with the ability to increase
the numbers of veterans receiving intensive services from DVOP
specialists without increases in funding. Intensive services are just
that--intensive--and require more time and effort. There is the
potential that increasing the number receiving intensive services could
decrease the quality of that service or decrease core services.
B. QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on this issue and address
the questions provided in your invitation.
1. What are the demographics of the veterans who are seeking
employment?
The U.S. Department of Labor--Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and Veterans' Employment
and Training Service (VETS)--provides the official reports regarding
the demographics of veterans.
The most recent BLS report, Table A-5, Employment status of the
civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of
service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted, shows as of January 2011,
there were 21,797,000 veterans, 18 years and over, in the United
States; of this figure slightly over 20 million were men, and almost
1.8 million were women. Almost 11.5 million of these veterans were in
the civilian labor force (10.2 million men; 1.2 million women). There
were over 1.1 million veterans, 18 years and over, unemployed as of
January 2011. The unemployment rate for veterans, 18 years and over,
for January 2011, was 9.9 percent (10 percent for men and 9.4 percent
for women). The unemployment rate for non-veterans, 18 years and over,
for January 2011, was 9.6 percent (10.8 percent for men and 8.3 percent
for women). (All figures in this paragraph are non-seasonally
adjusted.)
I want to emphasize a few statistics regarding services provided by
the workforce system. In the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010,
the workforce system served 39.9 million workers. The Wagner-Peyser
Employment Service (ES) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs served
75 percent of this total. The Employment Service served 22.5 million
workers.
Of this figure, almost 1.7 million were ``Veterans and Eligible
Persons,'' or 7.5 percent of the total served by the Employment
Service. The workforce system serves individuals who are unemployed,
underemployed, and employed. Over 14.2 million individuals received
staff-assisted services; of this figure, almost 1.3 million Veterans
and Eligible Persons received staff-assisted services or 75.8 percent
of the total Veterans and Eligible Persons registered with the
Employment Service. Of the 1.7 million Veterans and Eligible Persons
registered, there were almost 345,000 who received career guidance,
almost 716,000 were assisted with job search activities, almost 575,000
referred to employment, almost 130,000 referred to the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA), and over 557,000 received workforce information
services.
Approximately 640,000 veterans were served through these programs
in FY 2009, and the target for FY 2010, is to serve 653,000. The
linkage of the DVOP and LVER programs to the Wagner-Peyser Employment
Service is vital to the success of all three programs.
In Minnesota, 303,140 individuals were served by the Employment
Service in Program Year 2009; of this number 16,845 were Veterans and
Eligible Persons. We provide staff-assisted services to almost 76
percent of the Veterans and Eligible Persons.
2. What are the 10 States with the lowest overall performance in
meeting the common measure goals and what suggestions does the
association have to improve those low performing States?
Appendix Table 1 provides data on State unemployment rates at the
midpoint of Program Year (PY) 2009 (December 2009) and the common
measures of entered employment rate and employment retention rate for
PY 2009. These rates are calculated from the number of individuals who
are not employed at the date of participation.
The entered employment rate is the percent of
participants employed in the first quarter after exiting the program.
The employment retention rate is the percent of
participants employed the first quarter after exiting the program still
employed in the second and third quarters after exiting the program.
From these data one can identify the ten States with the highest
and lowest performance in PY 2010. I am pleased to say Minnesota is in
the top ten under both measures. For the entered employment rate,
Minnesota ranked seventh with a rate of 56 percent. For the employment
retention rate, Minnesota ranked first with a rate of 82 percent. I
might add Minnesota had a comparatively low unemployment rate at the
midpoint of program year 2009 at 7.9 percent in December 2009, which
was well below the national average of 10.0 percent.
I am not going to list the ``ten States with the lowest overall
performance in meeting the common measure goals,'' because I don't
believe one can construct such a list from these measures until they
are adjusted for what economists call ``exogenous'' factors, that is,
factors outside the control of the State. I have provided a measure of
one such factor, the State economy, in the unemployment rates listed in
Appendix Table 1 for each State.
We estimated a simple linear relationship between State performance
measures and State unemployment rates and found performance is
inversely proportional to State unemployment rates. In other words, a
State with a high unemployment rate generally will have poorer
performance than a State with a low unemployment rate. Appendix Figure
1 shows this estimated relationship.
Using our estimated relationship, one sees some surprising results.
For example, Michigan ranked second to last in the entered employment
rate and last in employment retention rate, but when we look at our
estimated relationship with the unemployment rate, Michigan performed
about as one would expect given it had the highest unemployment rate at
14.6 percent. Likewise, South Dakota ranked in the top ten on both
performance measures, but performed about what the estimated
relationship would suggest with its unemployment rate of 4.7 percent. I
am proud to say Minnesota performed above what would be suggested based
on the estimated relationship on both measures.
Based on our concern for taking into account factors outside the
control of the State, NASWA strongly urges the Committee and the U.S.
Department of Labor not to compare States in a given year without
adjusting for these factors. These factors should be taken into account
nationally also as the economy moves through the economic cycle.
Clearly, the program is likely to show better performance in good times
than in bad times both at the State and national levels.
3. How any DVOPs and LVERs will the President's proposed budget support?
The President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 for the
Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) is $165,394,000 to support the
DVOP and LVER staff and for other purposes, such as the Performance
Incentive Awards. This is the same amount of funds for FY 2010, and the
same as the estimate for FY 2011. The $165,394,000 amount does not
include services provided by DVOPs and LVERs for TAP workshops. For FY
2011, it was estimated that $163,678,000 will be allocated directly for
the DVOP and LVER programs; plus $320,000 is available for Performance
Incentive Awards. At this time any funds for FY 2011 is questionable,
since Congress has not yet passed a budget for the remainder of the
Fiscal Year.
There are currently approximately 2,100 DVOPs and LVERs funded by
the JVSG. The current level of DVOPs is about 1,130. The current level
of LVERs is about 965. However, for both the DVOP and LVER programs,
the actual number of individuals in these positions is higher due to
part-time positions. The National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI)
calculates there are about 2,325 individuals in DVOP and LVER
positions--1,250 LVERs and 1,075 DVOPs. Typically, we would estimate
level-funding would result in less staff due to inflation factors for
wages, overhead, etc.; however, currently due to budget deficits, many
States are imposing wage freezes, furloughs and other cost cutting
measures, which might offset the effects of inflation and other
factors.
The services of DVOPs and LVERs are needed more than ever with the
increasing number of recently-separated military members from the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars. We understand the current dire budget scenario,
and if current levels of funding are maintained, we will be grateful;
however, we stress services to our Nation's veterans should always be a
high priority, including the funding to provide assistance with finding
employment and training.
NASWA recommends language to prohibit States from imposing
furloughs and hiring freezes on staff funded by the JVSG. Since these
are Federal funds, any dollars saved have little positive impact on
States' budgets. Services to our Nation's veterans should not be
negatively impacted because of State budget problems. In fact, not
accepting or spending these funds would seem to negatively impact a
State's budget.
4. How many DVOPs and LVERs have not attended training at the National
Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) as required by law?
This question is best answered by USDoL Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS); however, we will provide our analysis. Under
the 3-year training requirement, of the LVERs and DVOPs hired Pre-2006,
there are six (6) individuals who have not received training by the
National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI). Of those individuals hired
in 2007, there are 15 individuals not trained. Under the 3-year
training requirement, there are a total of 24 individuals who have not
received training. There are currently 48 individuals hired in 2008,
who have not received training, but there is still time left for them
to complete training within the 3-year requirement.
As of October 2010, the period of time for DVOPs and LVERs to be
trained at NVTI decreased to 18 months. NVTI is currently behind on
meeting the needed classes to provide training within the new time
period. In March 2009, NASWA recommended an increase of $2 million for
NVTI training; the budget for FY 2010 was increased by close to
$500,000 and the FY 2011 request also includes this increase. NASWA
still supports its 2009 recommendation to increase funding to meet the
requirements of the new time period for DVOPs and LVERs to complete
training.
Additional funding for NVTI would afford an increase in the
iterations of the courses offered so States may promptly train new
staff. This would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
services provided by DVOPs and LVERs, and other workforce system staff
responsible to provide employment and training to veterans.
Also, many States have contracted with NVTI or the National
Learning Center to obtain onsite training within their State borders.
These classes not only provide training for DVOPs and LVERs, but also
to managers, supervisors, and other workforce system staff responsible
for providing employment and training services to veterans. NASWA
advocates for the additional funding mentioned above for NVTI to
provide in-state classes to improve services to veterans.
5. Which 10 States have the highest administrative overhead and what
are those charges?
NASWA does not have a list of the 10 States with the highest
administrative overhead. Each State Workforce Agency (SWA) negotiates
with the Division of Cost Determination (DCD), U.S. Department of
Labor, to determine a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP). The CAP negotiations
are based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The DCD negotiates, issues and maintains a file of indirect cost rates
and cost allocation plans based on OMB Circular A-87.
Each SWA must charge all indirect costs and charges within their
CAP proportionately to each program within their facilities or
responsibility. Indirect charges pay for such things as proportionate
share of personnel and related charges for management and supervision
staff (beyond direct program supervision), administrative support (i.e.
receptionist for an office), accounting staff and services, auditing,
budgeting, building leases, data processing, employee retirement system
administration, legal services, mail systems, office machines,
equipment maintenance and repairs, office space use and related costs
(heat, light, custodial services, etc.), payroll services, local
telephone and Internet costs, health services, etc.
Some States do have high indirect costs. However, each State's CAP
has been negotiated with the U.S. Department of Labor under strict
guidelines for all programs, and each program is required to pay its
fair share of these indirect charges. In the past several years, many
workforce services programs have received severe reductions in funding
levels. Yet, the funding reductions often have not been at a level
which would result in reductions of many indirect costs.
A prime example would be office space housing 25 staff members,
including 2 DVOPs and 1 LVER, funded by 8 programs, including JSVG. Due
to the elimination of a program, and reduction of staff of another
program, the total staff has been reduced to 19, including the 3 JSVG
staff. It would not be cost-effective to terminate the lease and move
to a smaller office, so much of the overhead costs remain the same--
receptionist, custodian, heat, lights, etc., but now the CAP must be
paid by the remaining 7 programs and shared proportionately for 19
staff instead of the previous 25. The 3 JVSG staff is now responsible
for 3/19 of the indirect costs, versus the previous 3/25. This is a
rough example. It should be noted not all CAP charges are based on
staff percentages; some are based on usage or another formula.
6. What change(s) to the State grant program are needed to improve the
overall performance of the program?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations to improve
the overall performance of the DVOP and LVER programs. The following
are the NASWA recommendations:
a. Advocate/Promote/Educate: Today's veterans are seeking
employment in non-traditional ways. Social media has allowed military
members to keep up with family and friends whether stationed in war
zones, in another country, or within the United States.
As a result, recently-separated military members need to be reached
in non-traditional ways. Congress, Federal agencies, including VETS,
and States should be looking into ways to help States and local areas
reach today's veterans.
Education campaigns and training in the use of social media and
networking could help veterans become more aware of their benefits and
the value of the services available to them. Funds should be made
available to States to promote and educate staff to assist these
programs to better serve today's veterans and employers. The promotion
of these services is vital to the overall performance of the programs.
Use of public funds for ``marketing'' is often deemed inappropriate, so
we use the terms, ``advocate,'' ``promote,'' or ``educate.''
A June 2010 poll from the Society for Human Resource Management
(SHRM) shows the greatest challenge veterans face in the civilian job
market is how they translate and describe their military experience. On
the hiring side, Human Resource (H.R.) professionals are largely
unaware of Department of Labor (DoL) programs that help to identify
veterans seeking civilian jobs.
The SHRM survey asked employers, ``How familiar are you with the
following Department of Labor (DoL) veterans' programs and have you
used them in your organization's recruiting?'' Sixty-eight percent of
the employers responding to the SHRM survey said they were not familiar
with the LVER program, while 16 percent were somewhat familiar but do
not use; seventy percent and 19 percent, respectively, said the same
for the DVOP program. Of course, some employers may hire veterans or
use services provided by a DVOP or LVER, but are not familiar with the
terms used in the poll. While the poll shows that 50 percent of
employers hiring veterans made a specific effort to recruit these
candidates, greater awareness of military veterans as job candidates is
needed.
NASWA appreciates the USDoL's ``Hiring Veterans: A Step-by-Step
Toolkit for Employers,'' and encourages the Department to provide more
resources like it for the workforce system, employers and veterans.
Resources and tools prepared at the National level should be developed
in a manner to allow States and local areas to customize the resource
to fit their local needs and to incorporate their own identification or
brand.
b. Translating Military Skills, Licensing, Certification, and
Credentialing: The SHRM report also showed that well over half--60
percent--of H.R. professionals polled said translating military skills
to civilian job experience is a challenge to writing resumes,
interviewing, and other related job-hunt communications. Another 48
percent said difficulty transitioning from the structure and hierarchy
in the military culture to the civilian workplace presented a hiring
challenge.
There are currently several resources available to crosswalk
military occupational classifications (MOC) and skills with civilian
classifications and skills. The O*NET Online Crosswalk Search,
available at http://online.onetcenter.org/ is a good example. However,
the ability to crosswalk skills is only the first step in the licensing
and certification (L&C) process. Some States have initiated L&C
programs for veterans, but many would need to begin the process.
NASWA recommends additional fund be appropriated by Congress to
cover the cost to implement State level L&C program. If additional are
not appropriated for his purpose, clarification is requested to allow
JSVG funds be used to establish and implement L&C programs as an
allowable cost.
NASWA recommends the Subcommittee look at the 2006 proposed
legislation, ``The Veterans Certification and Licensure Act of 2006,''
and consider new legislation to fulfill the intent of the draft. The
legislation proposed to establish a committee to report to the
Secretary of Labor on the following items:
(A) ``A description of any area of employment in which a
credentialing or certification system for veterans exists, an
evaluation of the effectiveness of each such system, and
information on the number of eligible individuals who took
advantage of each such system.
(B) An identification of any area of employment in which a
credentialing or certification system for veterans could be
established or improved during the 18-month period beginning on
the date on which the report under this paragraph is submitted.
(C) A description of the areas of employment the Committee
determines are the most difficult such areas for which to
establish a credentialing or certification system for veterans
and the recommendations of the Committee with respect to
methods of establishing such a system for each such area.''
Instead of creating another committee, the legislation could direct
the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer
(ACVETEO) to take on this responsibility.
c. Definition of a ``Veteran'': NASWA recommends any Congressional
legislation should maintain the same definition of a veteran for
reporting purposes for all Federal programs (Wagner-Peyser, JSVG
programs, Workforce Investment Act, etc.).
d. Partnerships: Due to the DirectEmployers Association partnership
with NASWA to create the National Labor Exchange (NLX), many States
have been able to significantly increase the number of jobs available
for veterans. In some cases, there has been a 300 percent increase.
This is an example of a partnership at the national and State level
with a strong focus to assist veterans in obtaining employment. This
platform provides States a tool they cannot otherwise create--a
national level platform to which jobs are pushed down through the
appropriate delivery systems to the local areas.
e. Federal Contractor Job Listing Process: Despite all the recent
improvements to the Federal Contractor Job Listing (FCJL) process,
NASWA and its member States are still unable to identify all Federal
contractors and subcontractors subject to 41 CFR Part 60-250 and 41 CFR
Part 60-300.
f. Customer Satisfaction: NASWA recommends customer satisfaction
surveys be used and the results of those surveys should be part of the
LVER Managers' quarterly reports. Customer satisfaction surveys are
used for other workforce programs with varying degrees of usefulness.
Because the LVER and DVOP programs are on a smaller scale than the
broader workforce system, and the programs are focused on one well-
defined population, the results of such a survey should be effective in
determining if a veteran's needs were met, and what the veteran thinks
of the services received.
7. How many months of unemployment benefits may a veteran receive
and what is the average number of months paid to veterans?
This is another question best answered by the U.S. Department of
Labor. The Employment and Training Administration Office of
Unemployment Insurance (OUI) is the Federal entity responsible for
unemployment insurance benefits.
For Program Year 2009, ending June 30, 2010, there were 1,674,034
Veterans and Eligible Persons who were registered with the workforce
system. Of that number, 730,596 Veterans and Eligible Persons were
eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI). Any veteran who has earned
wages from private or public employment is eligible for UI if they
earned sufficient wages in a qualifying period and are eligible
otherwise.
There are Federal laws regulating the UI system, but most UI
criteria are determined by each State in either State law or policy.
Most States pay individuals who had steady employment history a maximum
of 26 weeks. Currently there are several extensions of UI benefits
providing up to a total of 99 weeks in States with very high
unemployment rates. The maximum benefit amount of UI payments varies by
State.
The Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) program
provides benefits for eligible ex-military personnel. The program is
administered by the States as agents for the Federal Government. The
UCX benefits are available for recently-separated military members, who
were separated under honorable conditions, and have wages paid by the
military during a base period determined by the State, typically the
first 4 of the last 5 completed calendar quarters. The benefit costs
are covered by the respective branch of the military. The law of the
State under which the UCX claim is filed determines the benefit
amounts, number of weeks that can be paid, and other eligibility
conditions.
For the year ending December 31, 2010, the estimated average number
of weeks claimed for a UCX claim was 21 weeks, compared to the total
Unemployment Insurance (UI) average of almost 19 weeks. These figures
are a few weeks higher than in past years, a reflection of the Great
Recession.
It is estimated that six out of ten veterans exhaust their regular
UCX claims, compared to slightly over one-half of all claimants who
exhaust their regular State claims. Both the UI and UCX exhaustee rates
are significantly higher than in past years, again a reflection of the
poor economy during the Great Recession. All numbers and percentages
apply only to regular UI programs and do not include any extended
benefits.
NASWA and its members remain dedicated to improving the efficiency
of the labor market and its labor exchange function, and improving the
employment opportunities of our Nation's veterans. We are willing to
assist the Subcommittee and the U.S. Department of Labor in any way
possible to improve services to veterans.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues.
__________
Appendix Table 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans
State Unemployment Rate Entered Employment
(Dec. 09) Employment Rate Retention Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 11 51 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska 8.8 46 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona 9.1 41 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas 7.7 52 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 12 35 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado 7.5 44 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut 8.9 39 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware 9 38 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC 12.1 42 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida 11.8 45 76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia 10.3 43 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii 6.9 34 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho 9.1 53 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois 11.1 46 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana 9.9 46 76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa 6.6 57 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas 6.6 57 80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky 10.7 49 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 7.5 53 76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine 8.3 47 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland 7.5 50 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts 9.4 43 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan 14.6 35 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota 7.4 56 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi 10.6 45 68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri 9.6 54 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana 6.7 59 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska 4.7 51 80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada 13 47 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire 7 48 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey 10.1 43 74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico 8.3 45 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York 9 51 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina 11.2 40 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota 4.4 62 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio 10.9 39 69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma 6.6 51 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon 11 45 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania 8.9 44 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island 12.9 39 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina 12.6 49 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota 4.7 57 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 10.9 48 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas 8.3 53 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah 6.7 58 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont 6.9 48 76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia 6.9 52 80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington 9.5 48 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia 9.1 51 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin 8.7 49 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming 7.5 53 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix Figure 1:
Prepared Statement of John L. Wilson,
Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veteran
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I am honored to present testimony to the Subcommittee
today and comment on programs insofar as they are in accordance with
DAV's dedication to one, single purpose-- building better
lives for all of our Nation's disabled veterans and their families.
Under consideration in today's oversight hearing is the President's
Fiscal Year 2012 budget as it relates to the U.S. Department of Labor's
(DoL) Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). I am pleased to
have this opportunity to present our views on this important issue.
The VETS is positioned to provide critical resources to our
Nation's veterans. Today's continued unemployment problems underscore
the need for a properly funded program, and effective and well-trained
staff.
Diane Swonk, economist, author, and advisor to the Federal Reserve
Board and White House Council of Economic Advisers commented in the
spring 2011 USAA Magazine that the job crisis we are in will likely be
with us through 2011.
A recovery from a financial-crisis recession is inherently more
difficult than a recovery from a regular recession. The effect on jobs
is dismal. It will likely. take until 2013 to recoup the jobs lost to
the recession as we struggle with subpar growth. The only silver lining
is that it could have been worse, especially in light of the magnitude
of the crisis, but that provides little solace for the record number of
people who have already been unemployed for a record length of time.
Job growth is returning, but it is very slow. Meanwhile, population
growth still brings more than 100,000 new job seekers into the
workforce each month. The economy has to create enough new jobs to
employ new workers before making a dent in unemployment. As 2010 winded
down, the economy was only creating enough jobs to keep up with
population growth, causing the unemployment rate to stagnate. Many
economists expect more of the same in 2011.
A review of the January 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics economic
news release finds an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent generally for
veterans and 15.2 percent for more recent veterans, those who served
from September 2001 to present. Breaking the data down further by
gender, finds males have an unemployment rate of 15.2 percent and
females of 13.5 percent for this same group of veterans. A February 17,
2011, article in USA Today titled Female Veterans Struggle In Jobs
Market, by Meena Thiruvengadam, highlights the unemployment issue for
women veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which rose to 13.5
percent in January, above the 8.4 percent that was the seasonally
unadjusted average for non-veteran adult women. And while the overall
unemployment rate declined last year, unemployment among women veterans
of the latest wars was more than 3 percentage points higher in December
2010 than in December 2009.
Women, whose presence in the military has been climbing over the
past decade, now account for 1.8 million, or about 8 percent of 23
million U.S. veterans, according' to the latest statistics from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, their transition from the
military seems tougher than male veterans. The reasons for this may
include a Veterans Affairs system that doesn't adequately meet women's
specialized health care, child care and psychological needs; the
traditional role among women to serve as primary caregivers for
children; and a civilian sector that may not fully understand the role
of women in today's military.
As women transition out of the military today, many are turning to
VA for care. The current rate of enrollment of women in VA health care
constitutes the largest of any subset of veterans. According to VA,
from FY 2002 to the first quarter of FY 2010, approximately 50 percent
of 133,000 OEF/OIF women veterans utilized VA health care, with nearly
51 percent of whom were treated through making 11 or more outpatient
visits during the past fiscal year.
The Independent Budget veterans service organizations (IBVSOs)
remain concerned about the fragmentation of care and disparities in
care that exist for women using the VA health care system, and we
continue to encourage VA to fully address the unique healthc are needs
of women veterans who have returned from deployments, and to continue
to conduct biomedical and health services research initiatives to gain
broader understanding of women's needs in VA health care, including
outcomes, quality, satisfaction, barriers to care, and other important
challenges.
Whether female or male, given the plans of both the Army and Marine
Corps to cut troop strength by 47,000 depending on the operational
requirements of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, such
cuts will likely accelerate discharges of more veterans who will be
looking for jobs. Many will present military skills that do not easily
transfer into the civilian world.
The transferability of skills gained in the military has long been
a concern of the DAV and the IBVSOs. We believe that more must be done
to ensure that our highly trained and qualified servicemembers do not
face unnecessary barriers as they transition from the military to
civilian life. We recommend that the Departments of Defense, Labor, and
Veterans Affairs work with employers, trade unions, and licensure and
credentialing entities to promote developing the means for military
personnel to receive the necessary civilian equivalency to their chosen
career fields when receiving military education and training, thus
honoring their military service and allowing them to more easily
transition into a civilian occupation without the need for complex and
duplicative training or apprenticeships. We look forward to monitoring
the implementation of these recommendations and future program
improvements.
As unemployment continues to negatively impact veterans, we must
review current practices and consider new ways to address them. To
assist veterans in achieving economic security, both those
transitioning out of the military and those already in the veterans
population, VA provides education, training, employment,
entrepreneurship, homelessness interventions and housing assistance'
through a number of programs and offices. We believe that reorganizing
economic-related programs into a single entity, the Veterans; Economic
Opportunity Administration (VEOA), would not only create new
opportunities for greater collaboration, but would provide greater
focus and stronger oversight and accountability of these programs.
Consolidation also would relieve some of the burden on the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA), an organization that already faces
significant challenges in reforming its fractured claims adjudication
system.
The VEOA would be on a par with the Veterans Health Administration,
VBA and the National Cemetery Administration. It would be led by an
Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity and would be
responsible for vocational rehabilitation and employment, educational
assistance, veterans'' entrepreneurship, home loan and homeless
veterans assistance programs.
The VEOA would also serve as the single point of inter-agency
exchange regarding programs that are administered for veterans outside
of the VA, such as DoL's VETS, and similar programs in other
departments and agencies.
The funding of VETS ensures employment and training services are
available for eligible veterans through the Jobs for Veterans State
Grants (JVSG) program. Funds are allocated to State workforce agencies
through this grant program in direct proportion to the number of
veterans seeking employment within their States. Those JVSG funds
support Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPs) and
Local Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVERs), staff positions in
State workforce agencies. These employment services include assisting
transitioning servicemembers, their spouses and also employers
interested in hiring veterans.
DVOPs provide intensive employment services to disabled veterans
with an emphasis on those who are economically or educationally
disadvantaged, including homeless veterans. DVOPs are actively involved
in outreach efforts to increase program participation among those
facing the greatest barriers to employment. In an effort to provide
assistance, they visit VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Program offices, VA Medical Centers, veterans service organization
meetings; Native American trust territories; military installations and
other sites known to have concentrations of veterans or transitioning
servicemembers.
LVERs conduct outreach to employers and engage in advocacy efforts
with hiring managers in an effort to increase employment opportunities
for veterans generally, encourage the hiring of disabled veterans
specifically, and assist veterans in gaining and retaining employment.
LVERs hold seminars for employers and conduct job search workshops for
veterans seeking employment. The also facilitate priority of service
for veterans seeking employment, training, and placement services
through State workforce agencies.
To meet the specific needs of veterans, to include veterans with a
significant impairment in their ability to prepare for, obtain or
retain employment consistent with their abilities, aptitudes and
interests, DVOPs and LVERs are expected to be familiar with the full
range of job development services and training programs available at
the State workforce agency ``One-Stop Career Centers'' and VA's
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program locations.
In reviewing the FY 2012 budget request as it relates to the VETS
State Grants budget, which funds the aforementioned DVOP and LVER
positions, a straight line funding request is noted from FY 2010 to FY
2012 of $165.4 million. Given their current economic circumstances and
likelihood that a complete recovery to pre-recession employment levels
will be slow, we believe the JVSG program funding should be increased
to ensure sufficient staff are on board to provide the necessary
services for a growing population of unemployed veterans.
FY 2012
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY BUDGET AUTHORITY AND FTE BY ACTIVITY (Dollar in Thousands)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2010 FY 2011 Full FY 2012
Enacted Year C.R. Request
--------------------------------------------
FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Grants---------------------0--165,39------0--165,39------0--165,39
4 4 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Trust Funds 0 165,39 0 165,39 0 165,39
4 4 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next area to address is the funding of the National Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (NVETS) contract program of the VETS.
This program oversees the National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI).
The NVTI was established in 1986 and is administered by the University
of Colorado at its Denver campus, and at selected sites in the U.S. and
abroad. NVTI provides specialized training in veterans' employment
including employment service personnel, VETS and State staff,
Department of Defense personnel and others. To date over 50,000
veterans' employment and training professionals have attended NVTI
training, the only institute providing this training in the United
States.
Of the more than 2,000 DVOP/LVER positions nationwide,
historically, the annual turnover rate has exceeded 20 percent. This is
attributed to veterans initially entering a State's employment system
as a DVOP or LVER and eventually finding another position within the
State government at higher salaries. This turnover consequently
requires new candidates to be trained by NVTI. The DVOP and LVER
positions are crucial because they are often the first support contacts
newly discharged veterans will have as they make the difficult
transition to civilian life.
Because of inadequate funding, the NVTI has performed its
responsibilities over the past 2 years with a staff shortage of at
least two to three full-time staff members in Denver. This shortage has
limited its ability to fulfill additional training requests of VETS and
to travel to conduct training in the field . Currently all classes for
FY 20 II are scheduled and have staff assignments. However, under
Public Law 111-275, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2010, all
DVOPs and LVERs are to be trained at NVTI within 18 months of being
hired, instead of the prior standard of 36 months. Consequently, the
NVTI will not be able to meet the is shortened training requirement
without additional staff. We urge DoL to ensure funding of NVTI will be
sufficient to meet this new Congressional mandate.
Although the next topic is scheduled for a future budget hearing, I
would like to briefly address VETS' redesign of the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP), replacing the old program developed more than
20 years ago. This new program may require additional training and
support from the NVTI. As VETS redesigns TAP and searches for new
avenues to assist veterans with employment, having the option of
requesting support from NVTI would be invaluable. It's imperative that
NVTI have the funding to provide not only training as currently
constructed but also in new ways and to allow VETS to meet its 18-month
training obligation under Public Law 111-275.
FY 2012
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY BUDGET AUTHORITY AND FTE BY ACTIVITY (Dollar in Thousands)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2010 FY 2011 Full FY 2012
Enacted Year C.R. Request
--------------------------------------------
FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Veterans' 0 2,449 0 2,449 0 2,449
Employment and Training
Service Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Trust Funds 0 2,449 0 2,449 0 2,449
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adequate funding will ensure DVOPs and LVERs are available to
deliver services to veterans. DAV has expressed concern in the past and
do so again today, in accordance with DAV Resolution 234, regarding
using these professionals to provide services outside of their areas of
expertise. Many State employment agencies are utilizing DVOPs and LVERs
to work on public assistance-related programs. This practice diverts
these personnel from their prime mission, which is to assist veterans
with their employment and training needs. These professionals' primary
focus must be on the delivery of benefits to eligible veterans as
required in the VETS State Grants program. Every effort must be made to
ensure their first priority is assisting veterans.
While we are concerned about the proper utilization of DVOPs and
LVERs, we must also address their effectiveness when delivering those
benefits. A review of the Detailed Workload and Performance table on
page 71 of the FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justification for VETS
finds target performance measures to provide services to veterans and
disabled veterans. Of the 653,000 veteran participants in Performance
Year (PY) 2010 and FY 2011, the Performance Measure 1 target was 56
percent of the group finding employment. However, only 46.2 percent
were successful according to this measure. In PY 2008 and 2009, the
target was 62.5 percent. Performance Measure 4 focuses on disabled
veteran participants with a target of 51.8 percent for PY 2010 and FY
2011. However, only 43.9 percent were successful in finding employment
as a result of the measure. What is concerning is that the PY/FY 2012
target for Performance Measures 1 and 4 are to be reduced from 56
percent to 45.2 percent and from 51.8 percent to 42.1 percent
respectively.
STATE GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DETAILED WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2010/ PY 2009/ FY 2011 PY/FY
FY 2011 FY 2010 ----------- 2012
---------------------- ----------
Target Result Target Target
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workload Item #1--Number of-----653,000----624,000----624,000----624,000
Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Measure #1-- 56.00% 46.20% 44.80% 45.20%
Percent of Veteran
participants employed in
the first quarter after
exit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Measure #4-- 51.80% 43.90% 41.70% 42.10%
Percent of Disabled Veteran
participants employed in
the first quarter after
exit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note on page 71 of the same document, that the FY 2012
program is expected to operate differently as a result of refocused
staff efforts. Particularly concerning was the analysis that showed
only 17 percent of participants received intensive employment services.
This refocusing effort will result in providing more intensive services
to those who likely will have the most favorable outcomes, plus
veterans who are older, disabled or recently separated.
While we are interested in improvement of services through a
refocused effort, we are concerned about the proposed reduction in
performance standards for FY 2012. For example, what data were used to
support a reduction in this performance measure? Given the investment
by our Nation in training these veterans when they were on active duty
and now through the State Grants program, would it not seem more
reasonable to focus on increasing the performance measure targets, not
decreasing them?
That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley, Director,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.1 million men and women of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The VFW is pleased that
this Committee is examining the function of the Veterans' Employment
and Training Service (VETS) program. The Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVER) staff are intended to be the frontline,
community-based force that is the conduit between employers and
veterans. This conduit must be viable and effective.
The VETS annual budget is $261 million. They are broken down into
six accounts, they are:
State Grants program: These grants will support the State
Workforce Agencies by employing 2,117 DVOPs and LVERs in FY 2012, to
provide employment assistance to veterans.
Federal Administration: The Federal employees are tasked
with the oversight of the VETS programs, investigating USERRA and
veterans' preference claims and education and outreach regarding USERRA
and veterans' preference.
Veterans Workforce Investment Program: This is a
community-based program that has awarded grants that range from
$270,000 to $500,000 per year to provide transition and employment
assistance to veterans within their communities. In FY 20 I0, VETS
funded 22 programs.
National Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Institute: Operated through the National Learning Center at the
University of Colorado, Denver, the institute provides 26 courses aimed
at providing job-specific skills training for veterans' employment
specialists.
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program: Awards grants in
five key areas to help homeless veterans receive job skills training.
These programs are community-based. It is expected that these grants
will provide funding for 162 programs and assist nearly 27,000
veterans.
Transition Assistance Program: In 2010, as a supplement
to the traditional TAP program, an Employment Workshop program added a
two and one-half day workshop for transitioning veterans and their
spouses. The workshop includes procedures for obtaining verification of
job skills and experience, civilian workplace requirements, employment
and training opportunities and resume, application, and standard forms
preparation.
The VFW views veterans' employment as one of its top priorities,
and maintains a national resolution providing our support for a
``viable and effective veterans' employment and training system'' and
that the ``program must be held accountable for the effectiveness of
the services provided.'' This hearing is just the beginning of
determining the effectiveness of the VETS programs and what should be
done to improve the employment services for veterans.
The Grants Program absorbs a large majority of the VETS budget,
$165.4 million. VFW has identified several issues that have caused the
program to lack efficiency and effectiveness.
The method that is used to determine the amount of
funding that will be provided to each State appears to present a
reverse incentive for productivity.
Many of the services provided by DVOPs and LVERs are
duplicative in nature.
Ill-defined job descriptions have caused DVOPs and LVERs
to focus on tasks that should be performed by others.
Difficulties in oversight and performance measures
development and adherence has made accountability difficult at best.
Poor outreach to the veteran community impacts awareness
and participation.
Funding for DVOPs and LVERs is based on a formula that averages two
ratios. The first is the number of unemployed in each State compared to
the number of unemployed nationally, and the second is the number of
veterans who are employed in each State compared to the number of
veterans who are employed nationally. With these ratios, percentages
are determined and funding distributed to the States. This method
provides less funding for high performing States. VFW regards this
funding method as a reverse incentive. If States are being funded and
DVOPs and LVERs are hired and retained though this method, it is easy
to see that changing the ratio of employed veterans in the State will
change the percentage of funding provided though the grant. So,
improving veterans' employment will reduce the amount of funding
received and jeopardize the number of DVOPs and LVERs a State can
employ. This funding method must be reviewed to ensure DVOPs and LVERs
are incentivized to assist veterans, and not weigh increased
productivity as a threat to preserving their own jobs.
One percent of the grant funding is reserved for work incentives.
Current work incentive awards are based on improving the provisions of
services in general and not necessarily on employment outcomes. Also,
more than one-third of all States will not allow work incentives to go
to employees due to State policy restrictions or union agreements.
These incentives must be tied to performance and all employees must be
included in the incentive program.
The majority of DVOPs and LVERs are co-located with other program
providers at State workforce One-Stop Career Centers. There are at
least twelve other State Workforce Agency-funded programs that provide
priority to veterans, and provide similar and often the same services
as the DVOPs and LVERs. The Wagner-Peyser program, which was amended in
1998, provides job-seeker assistance through job referrals, recruitment
service with employers, arranging job fairs, identifying job skill
gaps, and directing potential employees to training. These services
closely reflect many of the services provided by LVERs. The overlap and
nearly equal effectiveness of these services is seen when the data from
DVOPs and LVERs is compared to the data from the Wagner-Peyser funded
program. The Entered Employment Rate (EER) and the Employment Retention
Rates (ERR) are within 3 percent of each other. These programs must be
reviewed for overlap of services to ensure finite resources can be
better utilized.
Also, VETS and VA's own Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
(VR&E) program have a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in place to reduce
redundancy. It is unclear to VFW if this MOA has truly reduced
duplication or if it is an effective method of providing services to
disabled veterans. VFW requests a review and evaluation of this MOA to
ensure its effectiveness in reducing redundancy and its efficiency in
providing the highest quality job training and placement for our
disabled veterans.
The intent of the DVOP program is to provide intensive services for
veterans who have employment barriers. These barriers can include
disabilities, long periods of unemployment, and incarceration. However,
the performance data that was collected in FY 2009 found DVOPs provided
intensive services only 17 percent of the time. Performance reporting
also shows that DVOPs are conducting LVER-type job duties. LVERs are
tasked to build relationships with local employers and connect them
with veterans who are entering the job market, as well as provide
briefings at Transition Assistance Program (TAP) events. But it appears
that LVERs are also assisting veterans who should be seen by DVOPs.
Both DVOPs and LVERs assist in conducting TAP briefings, a job that is
intended for LVERs. VFW suggests a study be conducted to identify the
difference between the currently defined scope of work and the actual
work that is conducted by DVOPs and LVERs to ensure that time and
resources are being used as intended.
Oversight of VETS is critical. The Secretary of Labor must submit
his or her annual reports in a timely manner, as specified by Chapter
41, title 38. Also, DoL must also apply performance standards that
truly judge the effectiveness of the VETS grants. Without proper
standards in place, we will never know what is working and what is not.
A 2007 Employment History Report, conducted for V A by Abt
Associates, found that only 21 percent of recently separated veterans
used any type of employment assistance from State employment agencies.
The majority, 51 percent, used Internet job searches. Veterans must be
made aware of the services that are available to them in their local
community. If only l-in-5 training or job seeking veterans use DVOPs
and LVERs, there must be a large communication barrier between the
program and veterans. VFW believes more emphasis must be placed on
explaining these services during TAP briefings, as well as in the local
communities where the DVOPs and LVERs provide services.
The 227 employees of VETS' Federal Administration have a wide range
of responsibilities, starting with investigating approximately 1,500
Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
violations and nearly 700 veterans' preference claims each year.
Education and outreach on USERRA and veterans' preference reaches
roughly 106,000 individuals, as well. VETS reports they have nearly
reached their strategic goal of closing 87 percent of all USERRA
investigations within 90 days. However, there is no indication within
these strategic goals of the outcome of the investigations. VFW would
like to see a USERRA strategic goal that tracks investigation outcomes
of suspected employment violations.
VETS also oversees the TAP Employment Workshops and National
Veterans Training Institute (NVTD. I will discuss these programs later
in my testimony.
The Federal Administration also conducts oversight of the Jobs for
Veterans State Grant, the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program, and
the Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP). Their
responsibilities for these programs are the same: To make site visits,
provide technical assistance on operations of the grants, and to review
the grant plans and financial and operational reports. Currently, there
are 236 grant recipients, and VETS' strategic goals reflect a 100-
percent achievement on all three programs. However, there are no
strategic goals that reflect how effective these programs have been.
VFW suggests that performance measures be developed to better track
success, and to use those results to determine the continuation of
existing grant
awards, as well as to build best practices for future award recipients.
VFW conducted a phone survey over the past week with grant
recipients of the Veterans' Workforce Investment Programs. Many of the
grantees also receive grants from VETS through the homeless veterans
program as well. In some cases, grant recipients were given as much as
$500,000, but only provided services for 70 or fewer veterans. This is
a cost per participant of more than $7,000. In other cases it appears
that grantees are performing much better, providing services for 200 or
more veterans, which brings the cost per participant down to DoL's
reported $1,700. However, it is unclear to VFW how reporting of veteran
participation within programs that are awarded multiple grants through
different VETS' grant programs are separated. Do reports show how many
different veterans are helped though which grant or do they report, as
an example, 100 veterans being helped though the workforce grant and
100 veterans being helped though the homeless grant, even though it
uses the same 100 veterans? When combining the total grant awards just
from VETS, organizations received up to $1.4 million dollars. If this
is the case, those that are providing services to 300 veterans though
the Workforce grant and Homeless grant combined would have a cost per
participant of $4, 100 per veterans served, and the number becomes much
worse for organizations that assist 70 or fewer veterans. It must be
made clear in their reporting of how many veterans are served by each
grant.
VETS does conduct annual site visits of all VWIP and HVRP grant
recipients. However, there are no strategic goals in place to report on
the productivity of the grantees' programs. VFW believes that VETS must
establish and report on performance measures that show the productivity
of these programs, and funding must be discontinued for programs that
are not reaching those performance goals.
The National Veterans Training Institute provides training to
veteran employment and transition service providers. There are
currently 26 courses offered that can be provided on-site as part of a
conference or meeting, or as a stand-alone class. Many of these courses
can also be provided online, which reduces cost. These courses are
critical to the function of DVOPs and LVERs; however, there is no
testing involved ensuring that participants truly understand the
information. In a phone interview with NVTI, it was stated that the
programs are set up to allow participants to absorb as much information
as they can. This concerns VFW. It is obvious that training is
important so the best services can be provided to veterans, but without
ensuring the information is retained, we are doing our veterans a
disservice. VFW believes it is critical that an information retention
assessment must be preformed for two reasons: First, to make sure those
taking the classes understand the information and secondly, to see if
there needs to be improvements in the delivery of the material.
The Veterans Homelessness Reintegration Program (HVRP) provides
grants for six assistance categories: General homeless veterans,
homeless female veterans and homeless veterans with families,
incarcerated veterans, technical assistance, and stand downs. In FY
2012, HVRP will grant 162 awards ranging from $83,000 to $750,000.
Nearly all of the award recipients in the Veterans Workforce Investment
Program also receive grants from HVRP. As stated, it is unclear to VFW
whether grantees differentiate between grant awards when reporting the
number of veterans assisted through this and other grant awards. Also,
there are no strategic goals that report on grantees' performance. The
end goal of the HVRP is to provide training and employment
opportunities for homeless veterans. VFW suggests that performance
measures be established to identify the number of veterans who gain
employment through these grant programs, as well as clarify the number
of veterans helped by removing any duplication of veterans served
between grant programs.
The TAP program has been expanded and improved with the recent
addition of the Employment Workshop program. In FY 2010, VETS was
funded and served nearly 130,000 transitioning servicemembers and their
spouses at more than 4,000 workshops. VFW suggests that performance
measures and post-workshop surveys be developed to ensure positive
outcomes for the veterans who use this program. VFW also recommends
that this program be expanded to serve more transitioning
servicemembers as well as veterans who have already left the service.
VFW believes the intent of VETS is necessary in helping veterans
transition from military service to civilian life. However, if the
program isn't reaching the outcomes that are intended, we must look at
the entire process, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and make
the necessary changes to provide effective job skills training and
career placement of our Nation's veterans. There must also be an
examination of the duplicative nature of the VETS grants and other DoL
grants that are in place to achieve the same goals.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Madden,
Assistant Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion
Executive Summary
The American Legion sees the current economic downturn and the
recently released numbers of unemployed veterans, as an opportunity for
the Federal Government to provide the transitional services that
disabled and recently returning veterans so need in this financial
climate. The necessity for proper training and career guidance is ever
present with our Nation's heroes and with the responsibility is a need
for proper implementation.
The Department of Labor (DoL) Veterans' Employment and Training
Services provides the training and outreach for veterans who are
seeking employment. This essential mission is provided through the Jobs
for Veterans State Grant Program. The American Legion contacted various
States in order to get a glimpse into how each State implements their
own program and the challenges they may face. These contacts
underscored an overall lack of consistency and implementation including
various open positions for DVOP/LVER's, lack of funding for the
program, limited resources provided to eligible veterans and
questionable responsibilities and duties of each DVOP/LVER.
Furthermore, based on budget justification provided by DoL and
performance indicators, The American Legion questions the continued
funding and support of State grants to recipients either not fully
compliant with or held accountable to the standards and guidelines of
the Federal law.
The American Legion suggests recommendations to better assist the
States and to provide the best resources to veterans who are eligible
for this program.
Appropriate $166 Million for the State Grant Program.
Transfer all DVOPs and LVERs from the State Agencies to
DoL-VETS for supervision and oversight.
Provide adequate oversight and scrutiny to guarantee
grants are meeting the requirements and provisions of existing laws.
GAO conduct an investigation and review of the Jobs for
Veterans State Grant Program to investigate the inconsistencies of the
program.
The American Legion believes a thorough and proper investigation
into multiple States will provide DoL-VETS with the information they
need in order get the program back on track and provide veterans with
the best possible service they so dilly deserve.
__________
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, The American Legion
thanks you for this opportunity to present its views on fiscal year
(FY) 2012 budget issues regarding the State Grant Program for
Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS).
The mission of VETS is extremely critical and timely. Veterans of
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars face unemployment at a rate of over 15
percent, two thirds higher than the national average, according to
figures released in February by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The problem is also getting worse. The same statistics from BLS noted
that the rate of only a year ago was 12.6 percent. To stem the growing
tide of veteran joblessness requires immediate and decisive action. The
American Legion urges Congress to adequately fund veterans' employment,
training and placement programs so well-deserving veterans can
successfully transition to their civilian careers after they complete
their military service.
The VETS program is essential for its unique mission to serve both
the employer and the veterans seeking employment within that community.
For some veterans this assistance is important because they served in
the combat arms and they possess military skill sets employers do not
realize are readily transferable to the civilian labor market. For
others, this assistance helps leverage the significant ``soft skills''
acquired through service in the areas of leadership, strategic
planning, risk assessment and management. The essential role of the
VETS State grant program combines these to demonstrate to the employer
the skills of the veteran and assist the veteran in exhibiting his/her
unique background to a prospective employer.
JOBS FOR VETERANS STATE GRANT PROGRAM
The DoL-VETS Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program (VSGP) was
funded $165 million for FY 2010 and the continuing resolution currently
funds the program at $166 million. The President's budget requested
$166 million for FY 2012. The American Legion supports the existing
budget proposal amount and yet questions if the existing implementation
of the program adequately supports the end goal of employing veterans
when figures clearly show the unemployment situation among veterans is
growing more dire.
The VSGP is funded to provide advanced or intensive services to
veterans seeking employment. Through the law, regulations and training,
those services offered to unemployed veterans are to be beyond that
offered to the general non-veteran who seeks employment through the
State employment centers. Yet analysis of 2009 performance data
indicated only 22 percent of veterans received these intensive
services. Corresponding employment of veterans was only slightly
greater despite the resources offered under VETS program. Not only were
the veterans not receiving the intensive services funded by the VETS
program, but the services they were receiving were no more successful
than those for unemployed non-veterans. This further supported a 2003
study that demonstrated older veterans, disabled veterans and recently
separated veterans have more favorable outcomes when provided intensive
services.
In light of these studies, within the Department of Labor's. FY
2011 Congressional budget justification, the argument was advanced that
outlined a refocus on the VETS delivery model. Now within the FY 2012
justification further merit is given to refocusing of VETS programs to
intensive delivery systems. The American Legion remains concerned on
why this has been delayed for so long and how it will truly be
implemented. While Congress and DoL continue to provide the State
grants, who holds the States accountable for implementation?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2011, the
unemployment rate for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)-Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) veterans is 15.2 percent and has been rising for 4
months. This statistic puts into question the effectiveness of the
State Grant Program. It does not appear the States are adequately
providing all the services they should to eligible veterans who are
seeking job assistance, such as resume writing, nor are the States
conducting outreach activities to local employers to promote the hiring
of veterans.
In order to better understand the situation, it is best to examine
a concrete example in the form of a single State. The State of Nevada's
unemployment rates have eclipsed or led the Nation in the most recent
recession. What once was a booming economy with the lowest unemployment
in the Nation is now suffering unimaginable devastation across the
public and private sectors. To exacerbate matters, DVOPs and LVERs have
had to endure furloughs, travel restrictions, and other
``administrative reductions'' to reduce State budgets while needing to
provide services to the unemployed veterans. In this way, Nevada is not
much different than many other States.
During the past 3 years, the VETS grants for Nevada have annually
increased from $1.113M in 2008 to $1.657M in 2011. From a cursory
review, one might applaud the increased grants provided to such a dire
economy, but was the increase worthy of the investment? Did the
increase enable more personnel to support the veterans? Was the money
received by the State pushed to serve the veterans? Since Nevada had a
hiring freeze, a 4.5 percent pay furlough, and travel restrictions, did
those savings leverage more staff? Only a detailed audit of those
records and the grants performance could verify a claim of improved
performance, but from the outset, the overall numbers remain less than
encouraging. Nevada's unemployment rests at 14.6 percent.
Moreover, Nevada's actual internal performance indicators
demonstrate this disconnect and the need for a refocus. During FY 2010,
Nevada established a 65 percent goal for veterans securing employment.
This was identical to their 65 percent goal for non-veterans securing
employment. State budget records indicate they fell far short of this
goal with only 47 percent of veterans securing employment. More
unfortunate is that this number was less than the 49 percent of non-
veterans who were successful in securing employment during the time
period. So with a uniquely funded program aimed at only veterans,
veteran employment was no greater than the usual employment programs.
Nevada is but one State in the overall implementation of the State
Grant Program, but the methods they used to decrease State budgets
through furloughs, travel restrictions and hiring freezes were not
unique. Through those administrative changes on a State level, the
performance indicators and success in employing veterans suffered. Yet
without the ability to carefully track and push for improved focus and
services for veterans, DoL must continue to fund the status quo rather
than the results of veteran employment.
The American Legion challenges the norm where a State is allowed to
provide the same goal for veteran employment as non-veteran employment,
not reach that goal, and continue to see an increase in their overall
grant allocations. Without adequate oversight and control of the
implementation at the local level, this grant program merely
supplements the resources offered to the unemployed rather than provide
additional veteran employment resources.
The Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program is staffed by Disabled
Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans
Employment Representatives (LVERs) who are each responsible for
carrying out a very specific mission. DVOPs provide basic career
guidance to qualified veterans and servicemembers and LVERs provide job
development for veterans by finding potential employers. One area
Congress should investigate is whether the one-stop career centers need
to have a transparent form of measurement available to the public.
These reports should include the number of individuals they see on a
daily basis and what types of assistance the veterans were provided.
True transparency and accountability are essential to ensure public
confidence that the money invested is achieving the desired goal.
The American Legion recommends DoL monitor the staffing levels for
DVOPs and LVERs to match the needs of the veterans' community in each
State coupled with the performance indicators and success. Staffing
levels should not be based solely on the fiscal needs of the State
government. Adequate funding will allow the programs to increase
staffing to provide the comprehensive case management and
job assistance required to provide employment to service disabled and
other eligible veterans.
The States are where the ``rubber meets the road''; and in terms of
implementing the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program. They are
responsible for carrying out the program mandates, but are not always
maintaining the same level of reliability. For example, the State of
Texas has spoken on the loss of focus in its State Grant Program.
Resources are minimal, due to the program being flat-funded and have
caused staffing levels to dip to severe numbers. Creating a robust
State Grant Program in Texas means appropriating enough funds to
maintain a growing program given the military presence in that State.
Recently returning veterans and the economic recession have created a
new class of unemployed veterans there who are in need of guidance and
proper training.
Due to the lack of funding, that the American Legion has found
State budgets have been cut limiting the access DVOPs and LVERs have to
the remote veterans particularly in largely rural areas. DVOPIL VER
travel is down as well and this lack of travel ultimately prevents
contacting rural veterans who might not be aware of this program, as
well as employers who cannot receive necessary education regarding the
program. Without the DVOPs and LVERs traveling and maintaining contacts
in rural areas and with potential employers, their ability to provide
the grant administration needed for the veterans they serve is severely
diminished.
American Legion experience in Florida indicates high personnel
turnover of DVOPs and LVERs due to the State shortfalls in pay and
funding. This lack of funding on a regular basis contributes to the
ever-growing challenge of lack of program consistency amongst all the
States. Both a high turnover and large numbers of vacancies in the
States for the DVOPIL VER positions and the lack of State focus for the
program as a whole are major hurdles and a challenge that this program
must address.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The State Grant Program has the potential to be an effective and
successful means to provide transitioning service-connected disabled
veterans and other eligible veterans' gainful employment. This program
is one way the Federal Government can equip these servicemembers with
valuable resources in their search for civilian success. In order to
make this a premier program that veterans will seek out and utilize,
The American Legion makes the following recommendations:
Appropriate $166 million for the State Grant Program,
Transfer all DVOPs and LVERs from the State Agencies to
DoL-VETS for greater supervision and oversight.
Adjust staffing levels to meet the needs of State
veterans' community, not merely the fiscal needs of the States,
Initiate a GAO investigation on the Jobs for Veterans
State Grant Program, to ensure the program is properly serving eligible
veterans.
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman,
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs,
Vietnam Veterans of America
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished
Members of this panel. On behalf of our National President, John Rowan,
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) thanks you for the opportunity to
appear here today to express our views on this vital veterans' issue of
how well the Local Veteran Employment Representative (LVER) program and
the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) is working, particularly
for disabled veterans, recently separated servicemembers, and those
veterans most at risk. My name is Rick Weidman, and I currently serve
as Executive Director for Policy & Government Affairs for VVA.
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) has repeatedly advocated the
``wellness'' model as the paradigm toward which all of the programs,
benefits, and services for should be aimed. What this means is that it
is the duty of the people of the United States, through our government
institutions and with our community resources, to do everything
possible to restore the men and women who have placed their lives on
the line in the common defense to the highest degree of autonomy and
functioning possible following that military service.
Said another way, all of us should be using a ``holistic'' view of
the physiological, neuro-psychiatric, and psycho-social aspects of
health of all returning veterans, but particularly disabled veterans.
The ``litmus test'' of achieving the highest degree of ``wellness''
possible for veterans of working age is the ability to obtain and
sustain meaningful employment.
While VVA still believes that the Nation's health care system for
veterans is still under-funded, despite strong increases this year, and
that the organizational capacity of the VHA is not yet adequate to meet
the full range of legitimate needs of the eligible veterans'
population, the simple fact is that we as a Nation do spend billions
every year on health care, readjustment counseling, vocational
rehabilitation, educational benefits, post-traumatic stress disorder
treatment, substance abuse treatment, and numerous other programs
designed to assist veterans. However, if the veteran is not assisted to
obtain and sustain meaningful employment, then there is no ``payoff''
for the individual or for the Nation.
It is because of this centrality of obtaining and securing
meaningful employment at a living wage is in the readjustment process,
particularly of our newest veterans, that what this panel does is so
key to a ``pay-off'' of all of the rest of the efforts extended by our
Nation.
As you know, the DVOP and LVER programs operate at the State level
through Federal grants from VETS. For far too long, VVA has observed a
significant disparity in the levels of performance between the varying
States. Some States, such as South Carolina, do a great job. Others do
not perform as well, and some might appear not to care whether they do
a good job or not. They get the same amount of money whether they do a
good job or not they do a good job or even try to do a reasonably
sufficient job.
Please let me note that I cannot emphasize too much that nothing in
this statement should be taken as a criticism of DVOPs and LVERs. Some
of the finest and most dedicated veterans' advocates (and finest
people, period) I have ever had the pleasure and honor of knowing are
DVOPs or LVERs. These folks are eclectic, as any large group would be,
and some are more skilled and effective than others. However, as a
group, I am always impressed by these fine Americans who do often do
great work, no matter what they have to do to accomplish the mission,
and no matter how much they may be punished for trying to do their job
correctly, and despite how poorly they are paid in some States.
Just as there are many individual veteran staff who are doing a
great job, there are some States, like South Carolina, North Carolina,
South Dakota, North Dakota, and others who have always done a great job
for veterans because it is ingrained in their corporate culture by
consistently having fine State leadership that is committed to veterans
over a long period of time. There are also individual office managers
who fully support services to veterans, and who go out of their way to
support the DVOPs and LVERs in their area, as well as using other
resources to help get the job done.
Similarly, the several GAO reports in the last 5 years note that a
veteran can receive services from a non-DVOP or non-LVER if they are
considered job ready. VVA agrees that this should be the case, given
that ``priority of service'' has been re-established as the law.
However, there are so few what is called ``Wagner-Peyser'' staff left
out there, So, as a practical matter almost all veterans are sent to
the veteran's staff.
The system is actually even more ``broken'' today than it was
before the passage of the Jobs for Veterans Act in 2002 (which
originated in this Subcommittee), with even more financial and
operational problems. It is still not performance and results oriented
in any meaningful way, nor is it meeting the needs of veterans in need
of the services it ostensibly provides.
Due to a decision by the Employment & Training Administration (ETA)
the current measure of ``placements'' is intellectually and otherwise
dishonest, and a preposterous example of the ``post hoc, ergo proper
hoc'' logical fallacy. Just because someone registered with the public
labor exchange, and then gets their own job with no help from that
State employment security agency (sesa) does not mean that sesa did
anything meaningful toward securing that position. But that is what
happens when the sesa compares the Social Security numbers of their
registrations with the UI tax rolls, which is what they do today.
Service disabled veterans, particularly those coming home from today's
wars, and veterans with significant barriers to employment are even
more short-changed today than they were in 2002. The former Secretary
of Labor put the former Assistant Secretary of Labor for ETA in charge
of implementing the Jobs for Veterans Act. Given the history of ETA, it
should come as no surprise that this well meaning law does not work as
intended by this body.
We have needed a true national strategy to deal properly with the
returning servicemembers for some time now. The last truly national
veterans' employment conference was held in Buffalo, New York in May,
1991.
Further, what is needed today is a system that focuses on placement
(real placements, not the dishonest nonsense that Labor is currently
using) of the highest priority veterans, who are special disabled
veterans (especially catastrophically disabled veterans), recently
separated veterans and recently de-mobilized members of the National
Guard and Reserve, and on veterans who are homeless or ``at risk.''
We must get away from the notion that this is a ``cheap'' process,
and focus on quality placements for those most in need.
Inadequate coordination between DoD and VA in regard to all aspects
of care for seriously disabled returning veterans, but particularly
with regard to VA Vocational Rehabilitation continues to be a
significant problem. It be fruitful for the Committee to look into
whether all of the recommendations of the GAO Reports have been
implemented, and how that coordination affects the VA/DoL relationship.
VVA would suggest that the Committee take steps to verify any quick
answers you receive from DoD or VA regarding these recommendations.
We must insist on real collaboration and cooperation between DoL-
VETS and VA, to include both VA Voc Rehab and the Readjustment
Counseling Service (VET Centers) at both the national as well as the
State/local level. This written comprehensive plan of action, as
recommended repeatedly by the GAO, must be specific, be able to be
measured, and have a mechanism for managers to be held accountable for
actual improvements in performance. In some areas of the country this
relationship has improved, but it needs to be made consistent, and be
measurable (and actually measured) in every area of the country, with
appropriate rewards and sanctions for managers involved on the VA side
and on the DoL side.
There simply must be a viable national strategy developed to deal
with employment of the returning servicemembers from the Global War on
Terrorism. While there is a commendable plan by the President and the
Director of Office of Personnel Management to bring more veterans,
especially disabled veterans into Federal service, it is the private
sector that we need involved in a major way. As we come out of this
recession and employers start hiring again, there must be a public/
private effort ready to move veterans, particularly disabled veterans
to the head of the line.
More than one and one half million servicemembers have already
rotated through Iraq alone, many of them two or three times. If the
Administration will not move to fashion such a results oriented plan,
then we call on you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues on both sides of
the aisle and both sides of Capitol Hill, to reach out and call a
convocation of public and private entities to put together a real
action plan to make a difference, as was done after World War II.
The veterans' staff members need to be made Federal employees,
answerable to the Federally funded State Director of VETS. VVA has come
to this conclusion reluctantly, after trying for 25 years to make the
relationship with the State employment services agencies work. The
State agencies have known that it might come to this for a decade, yet
there has been no movement by them to ``clean up their act.'' We simply
cannot waste any more time, as the returning veterans deserve and need
employment services that work, and they need those services now.
Although it is not popular to add to the Federal workforce, this is
something that must be done now. It is not only the right thing to do
for these fine young veterans, but it is a necessary thing to do. It is
in fact a matter of national defense.
We must think anew, and then act swiftly, in order not to fail the
brave young men and women defending us in military service today, and
those who are still recuperating from their wounds who are already
home.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all of us at VVA, I thank you and your
distinguished colleagues for the opportunity to present our views here
today. We would be pleased to answer any questions.
Statement of Christina M. Roof,
National Acting Legislative Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like to extend our
gratitude for being given the opportunity to share with you our views
and recommendations regarding the President's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2012 regarding veterans employment and training services.
AMVETS feels privileged in having been a leader, since 1944, in
helping to preserve the freedoms secured by America's Armed Forces.
Today our organization prides itself on the continuation of this
tradition, as well as our undaunted dedication to ensuring that every
past and present member of the Armed Forces receives all of their due
entitlements. These individuals, who have devoted their entire lives to
upholding our values and freedoms, deserve nothing less.
By way of background, the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (VETS) offers employment and training
services to eligible veterans through a non-competitive Jobs for
Veterans State Grants Program. Under this grant program, funds are
allocated to State Workforce Agencies in direct proportion to the
number of veterans seeking employment within their State. These grants
support two primary programs and positions, the Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVER).
The original intent of the DVOP and the DVOP Specialists was to
provide intensive services to meet the employment needs of disabled
veterans and other eligible veterans, with the maximum emphasis
directed toward serving those who are economically or educationally
disadvantaged, including homeless veterans, and veterans with barriers
to employment.\1\ Furthermore, DVOP specialists are required to
actively be involved in outreach efforts to increase program
participation among veterans with the greatest barriers to employment
which may include but should not be limited to: outplacement in
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program offices; VA Medical Centers; routine site visits to
Veterans' Service Organization meetings; Native American Trust
Territories; Military installations; and, other areas of known
concentrations of veterans or transitioning servicemembers.\2\ Along
this same premise the LVER's were founded on the principles of having
nationwide local representatives conduct outreach to employers and
engage in advocacy efforts with hiring executives to increase
employment opportunities for disabled veterans and to assist veterans
in gaining and retaining employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/empserv/
employment_services_fs.htm
\2\ http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/empserv/
employment_services_fs.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the law states any contract in the amount of $100,000 or
more entered into by any Federal department or agency for the
procurement of personal property and non-personal services, including
construction for the United States government, contains a provision
requiring that the party contracting with the United States take
affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified
disabled veterans, veterans who served during an action for which a
Campaign Badge was authorized, veterans who received armed Force
Service Medal and recently separated veterans. This also applies to any
subcontract entered into by a prime contractor in carrying out any
contract for the procurement of personal property and non-personal
services, including construction for the United States government. Each
contractor holding such Federal contracts is required to list all of
their suitable job openings with the appropriate local service delivery
site, such as DVOPs and LVERs, however, this does not apply to Federal
grants or other monies received not as the result of a Federal
contract. These requirements pertain to job openings that exist at the
time of the execution of the contract and those that occur during the
performance of the contract.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.wa.gov/esd/policies/documents/
4034.htm#lver_dvop_resp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, The Federal Contractor Job Listing Program (FCJLP)
requires the listing of job openings with local service delivery sites
and consideration of employment service referrals at least concurrently
with the use of any other recruitment source, including the employer's
own applicant files, and involves the normal obligations which attach
to the placing of a bona fide job order, including the acceptance of
referrals of veterans and non-veterans. The listing of the opening does
not require the hiring of any particular job applicant or any
particular group of job applicants. It is the policy of the Employment
Security Department (ESD) to develop job opportunities for veterans and
``Other Eligible Persons'' through the utilization of the FCJLP.
However, due to the lack of oversight and auditing for compliance by
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and Procurement (OFCCP), the
ESD is failing to get the DVOP and LVERs the most updated listings of
local Federal contracts, and thus veterans are missing out on
employment opportunities. AMVETS believes the OFCCP needs to be playing
a more active role in the oversight of Federally awarded contracts to
ensure the contractors are actually employing the required number of
veterans.
Now, if the DVOP and LVER specialists do receive the FCJLP
listings, this is when they are supposed to act. Upon notification of
the initial contract award, the LVER or DVOP specialist staff should be
immediately scheduling a visit with the employer to explain the
veterans' preference laws, ESD's referral services and to emphasize
ESD's willingness to assist them with their efforts. Employer records
are set up for each Federal contractor upon notification of the
contract award. All initial contacts should be recorded on the employer
record with the following notation: ``Discussed FCJLP.'' Sadly this is
not occurring at the majority of DVOP and LVERs. Problems such as ESD
not being able to reliably gain the labor market information to share
with the DVOP and LVERs, the inabilities to ESD and the DVOPs and LVERs
to access what Federal contracts have been awarded in their local areas
and the inability to gain access to the VETS-100 listings are proving
to be a huge hurdle in finding gainful employment for their veteran
clients. It is the belief of AMVETS that the DVOP and LVER specialists
have moved from their intended roles of employment specialist to that
of simply ``people processors'' who rarely leave their
offices.
The last stage of the specialist in aiding veterans in gaining
employment is to make subsequent contacts on an annual basis, at
minimum, as long as the employer has a Federal contract, either by a
personal visit, telephone call or letter. It is the responsibility of
each LVER to ensure an accurate and up-to-date master listing of
Federal contractors is constantly updated, maintained and used by all
staff with order-taking responsibilities. AMVETS again questions if
this is actually occurring at every DVOP and LVER.
LVER and DVOP funding under 38 U.S.C. Section 4102 (A), Subsection
(B) states that the Secretary of Labor shall make available to each
State with an application approved by the Secretary an amount of
funding in proportion to the number of veterans seeking employment
using such criteria as the Secretary may establish in regulation,
including civilian labor force and unemployment data, for the State on
an annual basis. The proportion of State LVER funding will reflect the
ratio of:
The total numbers of veterans residing in the State that
are seeking employment; to
The total number of veterans seeking employment in all
States.
Paragraph 5 of the aforementioned law also calls for the continued
monitoring and supervising of the distribution and use of funds
provided for use by the States. AMVETS believes that this is not
occurring, due to the lack of control DoL VETS is afforded on the
Federal level.
Furthermore, AMVETS believes that the current metrics used to
measure the success and thus the data used to review which locations
are meeting their goals are ineffective and misleading.
For example, AMVETS strongly believes the following measurement
tools to actually be more detrimental to veterans than they are helpful
to identifying successful practices with DVOPs and LVERs:
Any veteran who simply enters into a DVOP or LVER either
for assistance or just information is recorded as a ``veteran having
received counseling.''
Any veteran who finds employment without any assistance
from the DVOP or LVER is considered a successful placement and is thus
reported by the DVOP or LVER as a positive termination.
To stay compliant with the Government Performance and Results Act,
DoL VETS must implement stronger oversight and tracking of funds.
AMVETS believes that due to the current state of the entire DVOP and
LVER system this must occur through the Federalization of the programs.
Furthermore, AMVETS strongly believes the current DoL Assistant
Secretary of the Veteran Employment Training (VETS) program, Mr.
Raymond Jefferson, displays the attributes needed to lead this program
on the Federal level. He displays all of the necessary knowledge, true
understanding and drive to see all veterans succeed. However, the VETS
Assistant Secretary is currently restricted by current laws and
regulations in the amount of oversight they may have and what
consequences for non-compliance they can enforce. This is why we
believe the Federalization of the DVOPs and LVERs is also necessary.
AMVETS strongly believes that as we go into our 10th year of
fighting wars on multiple fronts it is of the utmost importance to
afford our Nation's returning war fighters every opportunity to receive
training and assistance in gaining and sustaining quality employment.
And, while AMVETS applauds the initial and intended functions of
both the DVOPs and LVERs, we believe the programs to currently be
lacking in oversight and effectiveness. While the mission of VETS is to
provide veterans and transitioning servicemembers the resources and
services needed to succeed in the workforce and to sustain gainful
employment, AMVETS believes that somewhere along the way the programs
under VETS have gone astray from their intended purposes. AMVETS is not
necessarily placing blame on the entire VETS program and leadership,
however someone must be held accountable to protecting the integrity
and intended purpose of the DVOP and LVER programs. AMVETS believes if
the government continues to provide Federal funding there must be
centralized Federal oversight of the entire DVOP and LVER program on
the Federal level under DoL VETS. We must start tracking funds and
goals in a manner that will provide the most functional way of
eliminating waste and improve short falls.
AMVETS makes the following recommendations to the Subcommittee in
an effort to restore the DVOP and LVER programs to their originally
intended and necessary purpose:
1. Due to the fact veterans are not currently getting the help we
are paying for in the DVOP/LVER program, AMVETS recommends the
Federalization of the DVOP and LVER requiring all DVOP and LVER
personnel be Federal employees under the oversight and direct
management of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment
& Training. This will provide stronger oversight of performance and
distributed/awarded grant money.
2. Redefine Entered Employment Rate (EER) and Employment Retention
Rate (ERR) for all veterans and have systems in place that will provide
the strictest of oversight of the new definitions.
3. Funding and grant money should be based on performance. Through
this you will reward the program sites meeting the goals and indirectly
make the lower performing program locations and specialist work harder
in order to meet goals and receive Federal funding.
4. Higher and measurable performance metrics must be set which
will quantify the effectiveness of services provided to veterans by the
complement of Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists
and Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) staff in each
State and such funding should be based around these measurable
performance levels.
5. Strict enforcement of mandated performance standards as set
forth by 38 U.S.C., Sec. 4102A, as well as regular unscheduled visits
and program audits to determine the strengths and weaknesses at every
location. AMVETS believes this will ensure equal access to quality
programs and staff, regardless of where they reside within the United
States. Furthermore, we believe these type of internal and external
review audits will prove to be the most fiscally responsible way of
eliminating waste, identifying duplication of effort and identify
personnel not performing their job as mandated by the programs. But
more importantly, these easily achievable and functional reviews will
identify what is working and what is producing the most successful
results. This is what we are striving for, identifying best practices
that are providing measurable results and improving the quality of life
of all the veterans they serve.
6. DVOPs and LVERs should be Federalized, even if only
temporarily, to provide the much needed oversight required to identify
weaknesses, strengths, waste and duplications of efforts.
In closing, I want to make it clear that AMVETS is in no way
recommending that the DVOP and LVER funding or grants be cut, rather we
believe a more fiscally responsible program should be based on
performance and meeting the goals outlined by DoL VETS. AMVETS believes
this will motivate individual DVOPs and LVERs to work harder in meeting
the needs of any veteran reaching out to them for help and guidance. We
must work together in developing a new centralized Federal oversight
office, such as DoL VETS Raymond Jefferson, to be able to track every
dollar of every grant awarded to ensure the money is in fact being used
only on staff and programs directly relating to a functioning DVOP or
LVER. AMVETS is not questioning any of the States ethics on how the
awarded funds were spent, however we believe in order to bring the DVOP
and LVER programs back up to par we need a dedicated location and staff
to the oversight of not only the correct use of funds, but more
importantly, that every veteran reaching out for assistance to a DVOP
or LVER is receiving nothing but the best services and training we have
to offer them.
Chairman Stutzman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
this concludes my
testimony and I will address any questions you may have for me. Thank yo
u.
__________
SAMPLE LVER REPORT TO ADMINISTRATOR
LOCAL VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Service Delivery Site: _______________
Date Submitted: _________________
LVER: ______________________
Quarterly Report: _________________
The following report is submitted on a fiscal year quarterly basis as
required by the DoL Funding Agreement for the Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) regarding compliance with
Veterans' Performance Standards, Prototype Standards, and
Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) activities.
Veterans' Performance Standards
1. Accomplishments:
2. Problem Areas:
3. Corrective Action
Taken:
Planned:
Prototype Standards
1. Accomplishments:
2. Problem Areas:
3. Corrective Action
Taken:
Planned:
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) (Note: All data
provided must reflect current Fiscal Year (FY) quarterly,
cumulative activities).
Referred from VA VR&E: Those VR&E clients determined to be job ready
and referred each quarter by VA VR&E for registration with the
local service delivery site for placement purposes: ______
(Data Source: VA VR&E).
Registered: The number of job ready VR&E clients referred from VA VR&E
and registered each quarter with the local service delivery
site for placement purposes: ______ (Data Source: local service
delivery sites.
Registered carry-over from previous FY:K Registered VR&E clients being
case managed who are ``carried over'' from the previous FY.
(First quarter entry only): ______.
NOTE: The following report categories are based on the VR&E clients
being registered with the local service delivery sites for
employment services.
Entered Employment: The number of above VR&E clients who have
registered with the local service delivery site and entered
employment each quarter through job placement or obtained
employment ________ (Data Source: local service delivery
sites).
Discontinued: (For the purpose of this report) identifies those
referred and registered VR&E clients who are no longer actively
seeking employment through the local service delivery site
________ (Data Source: VA VR&E).
NOTE: Status Determination is made by the local VR&E officer after
notification from the local service delivery site of those
veterans who have registered with the site, but are no longer
seeking employment services.
Average Entry Hourly Wage: Of the total number of VR&E clients who
entered employment during the current Quarter: $______
per______ (Data Source: local service delivery site)
NOTE: Average entry wage information is being compiled as baseline
data for Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS')
strategic planning purposes and to demonstrate program
effectiveness in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1994.
Additional Comments or Success Stories:
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
LVER Signature:__________________
Date: ____________________
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
The Honorable Raymond M. Jefferson
Assistant Secretary
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Secretary Jefferson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor Questions for the Record
U.S. House Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's
Budget and State Grant Program''
March 3, 2011
Question 1: In your opinion, should any State lose funding for not
performing well?
Response: The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
prefers to provide targeted technical assistance to improve a State's
underperformance, rather than reducing funding. Any substantial
reduction in Jobs for Veterans State Grant (JVSG) funding would
diminish a State's ability to provide services to veterans. For
example, a decrease in funding could translate into a need to lay off
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and/or Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) staff who serve veterans and
work with area businesses to increase hiring opportunities. VETS has
the option to require a corrective action plan, in conjunction with
ongoing technical assistance, to improve the performance of
underperforming States.
Question 2: How many reports does VETS have to do each year and
what percentage of your staff's time does that represent?
Response: VETS understands that this question refers specifically
to Congressional reporting and our response only addresses that aspect
of VETS' responsibilities. On an annual basis, VETS submits six reports
to Congress: four Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act
(USERRA) Quarterly Reports, one USERRA Annual Report and one VETS
Annual Report. We estimate that the preparation and submission of these
reports represents approximately 5 percent of the annual time of VETS'
program managers.
Question 3: Why does Guam, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Rhode
Island have ``no data available'' and do you find that acceptable?
Response: The reasons for the specific instances of missing data
from these four grantees differ, and VETS' plan for addressing the
grantees' deficiencies focuses on the unique factors in each case.
With respect to Puerto Rico (PR) and Guam, VETS has
recognized for some time that both of these territories face
infrastructure constraints that differ significantly from those faced
by State grantees. VETS has been working with PR since 2008. In June,
2010, VETS met with the PR Deputy Secretary of Labor to discuss
reporting concerns. As a result, reporting improved but still contained
errors. These problems were identified and were being fixed by a
contractor and the IT staff. Several reports were subsequently
produced, but reporting has recently stopped again. VETS continues to
monitor the situation and an on-site visit is being scheduled to meet
with the PR government to further discuss these issues. Guam only
recently became a recipient of Jobs for Veterans State Grant funds and
VETS is currently working with the grantee on a process of improvement
similar to the process already underway with Puerto Rico.
For several years, Pennsylvania has been conducting a
major pilot of a new reporting system. During the course of the pilot,
Pennsylvania has maintained continuity and consistency with the
reporting system implemented by the other States. Pennsylvania did
experience a lapse during two quarterly reporting periods, but these
lapses did not affect its annual reporting, and the cause of the lapse
has since been resolved.
The reporting for Rhode Island has generated concerns by
VETS' staff regarding its timeliness and quality. As a result, VETS put
the grantee on a corrective action plan, which required the State
government to transfer an individual to the fiscal department so that
the reports could be completed timely and accurately. The plan was
completed in early April and an individual was transferred as required.
The second quarter reports were submitted on time, but still had
problems as far as their quality. VETS continues to work with the Rhode
Island to correct these errors.
VETS does not consider missing data to be acceptable. However, VETS
recognizes that grantees experience concrete problems with reporting,
and strives to work in partnership with its grantees to
identify constructive solutions to identified problems.
Question 4: In your estimation, what percentage of incarcerated
veterans are successfully reintegrated back in their communities?
Response: Our new Incarcerated Veterans' Transition Program (IVTP)
provided over $4 million in funding to selected grantees and is just
two quarters into the current performance period. Therefore, VETS does
not yet have conclusive data on outcomes for this new initiative. It is
clear, however, that structured intensive service programs, such as the
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program, can significantly increase
the potential for successful reintegration into meaningful employment.
During the prior demonstration of IVTP, carried out in PY 2004 through
2007, approximately 50 percent of the formerly incarcerated
participants were placed into
employment.
Question 5: Should DVOPs and LVERs go through the NVTI training
before beginning work in their State?
Response: VETS does not think that a DVOP specialist or an LVER
staff member should go through National Veterans' Training Institute
(NVTI) training before beginning to serve veterans in their State. Our
primary rationale is that the relatively high rate of turnover among
these veterans' representatives, coupled with States' procedures for
filling such vacancies, already makes it difficult for States to
maintain staffing at funded FTE levels. If DVOP specialists and LVER
staff members were required to complete training prior to reporting for
work, the vacancy periods would be extended even further. In addition,
we believe that DVOP specialists and LVER staff are more likely to
benefit from NVTI training after they have gained some experience
serving veteran clients in their own States. They can then attend NVTI
training with the necessary ``frame of reference'' to directly relate
it to their cumulative experience in a One-Stop Career Center work
setting, thus increasing the impact and value of the NVTI training
experience.
Question 6: How many vacancies do you have in your office?
Response: VETS' current authorized FTE level is 227. We currently
have 209 staff on board, 187 in the field and 22 in the National
Office. There are 12 vacancies in the field and 6 vacancies at the
National Office.
Question 7: Last Congress, you testified in a hearing, that DoL was
going to begin a pilot program that will offer tailored intensive
services by DVOPs. Can you provide us an update?
Response: Following that hearing, VETS leadership reexamined its
plan to launch a ``pilot program.'' VETS determined that the
appropriate solution to the concerns raised during the hearing was to
implement changes across the entire program instead of as a limited
pilot since offering tailored intensive services is the primary role of
DVOPs. Thus, VETS prepared and issued a directive to States entitled
``Refocused Roles & Responsibilities of JVSG Funded Staff'' (VPL. 7-
10). In this directive, VETS was clear that in order to best serve
veterans effectively and efficiently, VETS required DVOP specialists to
focus on their primary core role which is to provide intensive services
to targeted veterans. In addition, as part of their Jobs for Veterans'
State Grant funding for FY 2011, States were directed to improve the
coordination of services for Disabled Veterans and returning
servicemembers who face significant barriers to employment. We are
hopeful that the increased efforts for this population will yield
positive results over time.
Question 8: Are the current performance measures properly gauging
the work done by the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)?
Response: VETS believes that the current performance measures
provide a reasonable basis for measuring the results achieved by VETS'
grantees, as well as the results achieved by VETS' Federal staff. All
of VETS' grant programs measure veteran participants' entry to
employment, their retention in employment, and their earnings level
following program participation. With respect to USERRA, VETS currently
measures the timeliness of Federal staff in carrying out two aspects of
their responsibilities: timeliness of investigations and timeliness of
referrals. In addition, VETS is currently developing a third measure of
the quality of the investigations of USERRA claims. We recognize that,
as programs adapt in response to changing circumstances, measures also
must adapt. We also recognize that measures never perfectly reflect the
results they are intended to capture. Therefore, VETS is committed to a
process of continuous improvement in performance measurement to ensure
programs are relevant and address their intended goals. That process is
actively underway during the current fiscal year.
Question 9: How are the States' shrinking budgets impacting the
work being done by DVOPs and LVERs?
Response: We are extremely proud of the fine work that the DVOP
specialists and LVER staff perform given their relative numbers and the
ever-increasing budget constraints. The shrinking budgets in States
have multiple impacts on the work performed. First, there are State-
imposed hiring freezes and four-day work weeks that are designed to
conserve State revenues, but produce under-expenditures in Federal
program funding. There are also constraints on the amount of outreach
and job development visits performed when States impose travel
restrictions to curb expenses, particularly fuel and transportation
costs. We have recently revised our fiscal reports to more clearly
identify the administrative overhead being charged to the JVSG to
support DVOP and LVER staff.
Question 10: Some individuals have stated that NVTI cannot keep up
with the need to train all DVOPs and LVERs within the 18 month time
frame due to budget constraints. Is this true?
Response: It is true that with a fixed budget for NVTI, hard
decisions have to be made to manage the demand for other professional
courses while still meeting the goal of completing core training for
all DVOP and LVER staff within 18 months of appointment. This, coupled
with States' shrinking budgets and policies limiting out-of-state
travel, challenges our ability to guarantee that all DVOP and LVER
staff will complete the core training within the 18 months of
appointment. However, it is VETS' intent to work with States to comply
with the statutory requirement. We have already received a plan, based
upon past turnover data, that increases the intensity with which NVTI
delivers core training classes at its national hub in Denver and at on-
site locations in selected States to conserve costs and increase
training completions.
Question 11: When will VETS finalize the review on the Jobs for
Veterans State Grant program?
Response: VETS has completed the data collection from our State
Directors. We plan to analyze those responses over the next few months
and have results to share by soon. At that point, we will make
decisions on what next steps to take to implement our analysis.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
Ms. Bonnie Elsey
President-Elect, National Association of State Workforce Agencies
Senior Administrative Officer
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
444 North Capitol Street NW,
Suite 142
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Ms. Elsey:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
and deliverables by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
National Association of State Workforce Agencies
Washington, DC.
April 19, 2011
Ranking Member Bruce L. Braley
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Braley:
Thank your for the opportunity to answer the questions you provided
to NASWA following the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans Employment and
Training Service's Budget and Grant Program on March 3, 2011.
I am responding to your March 7, 2011, letter addressed to the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) President
Bonnie Elsey.
Following are the answers to the questions you posed. If you have
any other questions or concerns, please let me know. Again, thank you
for the opportunity to answer these questions and provide additional
information.
Sincerely,
Bob Simoneau
Deputy Executive Director
__________
NASWA's Responses to Questions from Ranking Member Braley
March 3, 2011 Hearing
Questions for the Record
Question 1: What is your assessment of how the JVSG is doing
nationally?
Response: As with any program, there is always room for
improvement, and states continuously strive to improve the JVSG
program. The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 significantly improved the
program for our Nation's veterans. Considering the current economic
situation following the Great Recession, the program is doing well.
In July 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS) issued guidance to refocus the roles and
responsibilities of JVSG funded staff; NASWA supports the basic changes
included in the guidance. Our written testimony for the March 3rd
hearing included six items we would like to see changed in the overall
performance of the program:
a. Advocate/Promote/Educate;
b. Translating Military Skills, Licensing, Certification, and
Credentialing;
c. Definition of a ``Veteran;''
d. Partnerships;
e. Federal Contractor Job Listing Process; and
f. Customer Service.
Question 2: What is your opinion of the performance measures used
by VETS?
Response: NASWA supports the current performance measures for the
Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP). The guidance issued by VETS
to clarify intensive services, and to better align those same services
provided by Wagner-Peyser and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) should
improve the reporting of intensive services for veterans.
NASWA is concerned that the roles and responsibilities of the Local
Veteran Employment Representative (LVER) do not match well with the
required performance measures. The primary role of a LVER is to conduct
employer outreach on behalf of veterans. LVERs are also directed to
focus on job development for veterans, something that is not always
conducive to today's hiring practices by employers. The performance
measures for the LVER program do not capture any outreach services. The
LVER performance measures should be addressed to better align with the
roles and responsibilities for the position.
NASWA is aware of the concerns voiced by some representatives of
Veterans Service Organizations and other groups regarding the
performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs. The recommendation
is often made by these groups to return the performance measures to
placements instead of entered employment rate and employment retention
rate.
We do not support the use of placements as a measurement. The three
primary reasons are:
(1) No matter how good a state's workforce system is, it will only
be able to capture a small percentage of the actual job openings in any
area. Measuring performance on placements will encourage DVOPs and
LVERs to only focus on the job openings in their job bank, instead of
job openings at-large.
(2) The LVER and DVOP programs work closely with the Wagner-Peyser
and WIA programs, which are measured on entered employment rate.
(3) The LVER and DVOP programs do not have a separate reporting
system; they use the job matching system supported by Wagner-Peyser Act
funds and its reporting system.
Perhaps the Committee could request a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report examining the performance measures and request
recommendations.
Question 3: Do we need a better way to determine the administrative
overhead costs?
Response: We agree the administrative overhead costs for the DVOP
and LVER programs are a concern. Elimination or reduction of other
workforce programs in one-stop centers and escalating infrastructure
and oversight costs have in many cases resulted in a significant
increase in administrative costs for the DVOP and LVER programs. Each
state workforce agency (SWA) negotiates with the Division of Cost
Determination (DCD), U.S. Department of Labor, to determine a Cost
Allocation Plan (CAP). Each SWA must charge all indirect costs and
charges within their CAP proportionately to each program within their
facilities or responsibility. Our written testimony for the March 3rd
hearing further describes this process and the issues surrounding it.
NASWA is concerned with the increasing percentage of JVSG funds
required for administrative overhead costs, especially in some states.
However, states must comply with the Cost Allocation Plan described
above and further described in our written testimony.
Question 4: Do you think that part-time DVOPs and LVERs are a good
idea?
Response: Yes, NASWA believes the ability for states to use part-
time DVOPs and LVERs is a good idea. States should have the authority
to determine whether to use part-time, defined as ``half-time''
positions--or not. Some states have indicated they strongly support the
half-time positions; others have indicated they do not believe it works
well in their state.
In states with large rural areas, the ability to have half-time
positions allows the state to spread the positions to more one-stop
centers and to cover more of the state. This reduces ``windshield
time'' for a full-time DVOP or LVER, who would spend more time
traveling than providing direct services. It provides more flexibility
to maximize services to veterans.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
Mr. John L. Wilson
Assistant National Legislative Director
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Post-Hearing Questions for John Wilson
Assistant National Legislative Director of the Disabled American
Veterans
Following the March 3, 2011 Hearing of Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
U.S. House of Representatives
Question 1: In your written testimony, you are concerned that the
funding level for State Grants is not enough. What do you consider to
be an appropriate funding level?
Answer: The Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) offers
employment and training services to eligible veterans through its Jobs
for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program. Funds are allocated to state
workforce agencies in direct proportion to the number of veterans who
are employed in each state compared to the number of unemployed
veterans nationally. Disabled American Veterans (DAV) believes funding
should be sufficient to ensure that Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
Specialists (DVOPs) and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives
(LVERs) are available in adequate numbers so that no veteran has to
wait extended periods to be provided the employment services they seek.
The primary focus of DVOPs and LVERs should be on providing priority
service to veterans as opposed to state workforce agency managers
utilizing them to work with or process public assistance programs.
Question 2: In your opinion how effective is the DVOP/LVER program?
Answer: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 required at
least one impact evaluation to be conducted by 2005 to assess how
effective VETS one-stop services are in helping veterans find and
maintain employment program services. The Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA)
of 2002 built upon the WIA by consolidating funding for veterans
employment and training services into the JVSG. In the 2004 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Report, Veterans' Employment and Training
Service, Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services,
Outcomes, and Program Impact, GAO-07-594, the GAO recommended that the
Department of Labor (DoL) conduct the impact evaluation as required
under the 1998 WIA.\1\ In testimony presented April 7, 2011, by Andrew
Sherrill, GAO Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, GAO-11-506T, titled
Employment And Training Programs, Opportunities Exist for Improving
Efficiency,\2\ he stated ``. . . little is known about the
effectiveness of employment and training programs because only 5 of the
47 programs reported that they had conducted any impact studies since
2004.'' This lack of a system-wide impact evaluation or study impairs
policy makers and program managers ability to make ``. . . decisions
about how to improve, coordinate, or consolidate existing programs.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Government Accountability Office, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING SERVICE, Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment
Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact, May 2007, page 10
\2\ Andrew Sherrill, GAO Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues on April 7, 2011, Page 14
\3\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of JVSG data reporting is also addressed in Director
Sherrill's April 7, 2011 testimony. He states that DoL has made
progress in information reporting, but two issues remain:
First, only a small proportion of job seekers who receive
services at one-stops are eflected in WIA outcome data. While
customers who use self-services are estimated to be the largest
portion of those served under WIA, job seekers who receive
self-service or informational services are specifically
excluded from performance calculations by the statute. Second,
WIA's performance measurement system contains no provision for
measuring overall one-stop performance, relying instead on a
program-by-program approach that cannot easily be used to
assess the overall performance of the one-stop system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid
Assistant Secretary Jefferson stated at the March 3, 2011 hearing
before this Subcommittee, beginning in 2011, DoL will be reviewing the
JVSG program so a current assessment of its effectiveness can be
obtained. He indicated that VETS will conduct a comprehensive, formal
review to determine what improvements are needed ``to gain a clearer
picture of how the JVSG program is helping veterans gain meaningful
employment and whether any improvements are needed to help States
achieve their outcome measures.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Statement of Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson, Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program, March 3, 2011, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAV views an impact evaluation or study carried out in such a way
as to provide a valid assessment of the effectiveness of the JVSG
program in its entirety as essential in evaluating the effectiveness of
the VETS program. If the formal review highlighted by Assistant
Secretary Jefferson addresses the objectives of the impact study
required by the 1998 WIA, then the results of this formal review could
not only fulfill this longstanding requirement, it could identify
additional areas for improvement, enhancements to program performance
metrics and offer other insights on how to maximize VETS ability to
help veterans find and maintain employment.
Further, action must be taken to ensure VETS has an effective
performance management system of key employment and training program
indicators to aid policy makers and program managers in making informed
decisions on delivery of services and budgetary support. We urge
Congress, through its oversight function, to work closely with DoL to
ensure an impact study is carried out in such a way as to provide a
valid assessment of the effectiveness of the JVSG program in its
entirety is completed, and an effective performance management system
is put in place.
Question 3: Do you believe DVOPs and LVERs are properly trained to
provide employment services?
Answer: To address the adequacy of training of DVOPs and LVERs
requires an evaluation of the National Veterans' Training Institute
(NVTI) educational effort, which is responsible for their training.
DVOPs and LVERs hired on or after October 13, 2010 must now complete
their training within 18 months of being hired as opposed to the former
standard of 36 months. In a report titled Veterans' Employment and
Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and
Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services, GAO-06-
176, December 2005, GAO surveyed state and local workforce officials
who indicated they were pleased with the quality of NVTI training.
A review of course critiques of actual participants who attended
NVTI between October 2010 and March 2011 provides a more current
assessment. NVTI requires pre- and post-testing of program
participants. Using a one to five scale for pre- and post-testing,
participants pre-test knowledge of course material was 1.41 on average,
while post-test results revealed a 4.96 overall rating. This sampling
of critiques is generally consistent with data from previous years. The
findings of the above-referenced GAO 2005 report, as well as course
critique results, indicate that NVTI continues to provide an effective
training program. Given this continued positive performance, we believe
increased funding for at least two to three full-time staff members to
correct the staff shortage of the past 2 years is appropriate. Such a
staff increase would allow NVTI to provide additional training to
DVOPs, LVERs and others through more on-campus courses, e-learning
platforms or site visits.
Based on the feedback from state and local workforce officials in
2005 and positive course critiques over an extended period, it seems
effective training is being provided by NVTI. We would prefer to see
that training investment fully realized with DVOPs and LVERs focused on
assisting veterans in finding employment as opposed to working on
public assistance related programs such as food stamps. We encourage
Congress, through its oversight role, to investigate how DVOPs and
LVERs are utilized and to work with DoL to ensure effective tools are
in place to hold management accountable.
Question 4: Do you think that the staffing and funding level for
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives is adequate to properly address the
employment needs of our veteran population?
Answer: One area of concern has to do with DVOPs and LVERs turnover
rate of approximately 20 percent. One of the reasons for this turnover
rate may be that these employees are typically hired at entry level
positions in most states. Anecdotally, if these state employees' jobs
were compared to their equivalent Federal sector peers they may be
rated as GS-7s without an undergraduate degree, GS-9s with an
undergraduate degree, and GS-10s or 11s with a graduate degree. Once
hired, these entry level employees may be seeking better paying
positions within their respective states, thus contributing to a high
turnover rate.
One option offered by some would be to allow all DVOPs and LVERs to
compete for the 1 percent of JVSG funding reserved for performance
incentives. Unfortunately, work incentive awards are based on improving
the provisions of services in general and not necessarily on employment
outcomes. Also, while many states would allow such incentive
opportunities, about one-third of all states will not allow work
incentives to go to employees because this JVA requirement conflicts
with state laws, policies, or collective bargaining agreements.\6\ We
encourage Congress to work to lift such restrictions within these
states. Once lifted, DVOPs and LVERs would then be able to compete for
JVSG performance incentive awards regardless of the state in which they
are employed. Such incentives could enhance employee retention and
improve the assistance they provide to veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO Report, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE Labor
Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement
Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services GAO-06-176, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, DAV supports an impact study carried out in such
a way as to provide a valid assessment of the effectiveness of the JVSG
program in its entirety. If the formal review that Assistant Secretary
Jefferson highlighted also addresses the objective of the impact study
required by the 1998 WIA, then the results of this review could provide
an objective evaluation of the JVSG program and the adequacy of its
staffing and funding. Decisions on staffing and funding can also be
better informed if DoL put in place an effective and accurate
performance management system of key employment and training programs.
We urge this Subcommittee, through its oversight function, to work
closely with DoL to ensure an impact study is completed and an
effective performance management system is put in place. We also
encourage Congress to work with the applicable states and unions to
lift restrictions precluding DVOPs and LVERs from being able to compete
for JVSG performance incentives.
Question 5: What is DAV's recommendation on how to address the
licensure and credentialing since the individual states are responsible
for it?
Answer: The Department of Defense (DoD) has developed new ways to
inform servicemembers interested in pursuing vocational and technical
licensing and certification in various career fields and providing
information on state requirements. These programs are designed to help
document training or experience and offer information on taking courses
or exams to get the types of certification and licensing that are
important to their eventual transition into the civilian workforce.
While each of the Services offers this information through various Web
sites, two similar programs are referenced here: the U.S. Army COOL
Program (https://www.cool.army.mil/
) and; the U.S. Navy COOL Program (https://www.cool.navy.mil/
index.htm).
The acronym COOL stands for (Credentialing Opportunities On-Line).
Both Services' programs explain how active duty personnel, officer or
enlisted, can meet civilian certification and license requirements
related to their career fields. This provides a way for servicemembers
to assess their current level of training. Then they can review the
certification and licensure requirements for the state in which they
will reside once they leave the military. With this information in
hand, they have the opportunity to plan for their transition by making
use of their Services' Tuition Assistance (TA) Program while on active
duty (TA can pay up to 100 percent of tuition but requires the
participant to serve longer in the military, referred to as an active
duty service commitment), the Post-9/11 GI Bill, or if eligible, the
Vocational Rehabilitation program offered by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) for those with a service-connected disability and an
employment handicap.
While these enhanced Web sites are important as are the
opportunities to obtain additional training during or after military
service, it would seem a more proactive approach should be considered.
As an alternative, the DoD could expand its training programs so that
they meet the requirements of their civilian equivalent career paths.
Once the training was completed, and while the information is fresh,
servicemembers would be permitted to take certification equivalency
examinations to gain apprentice or journeyman status for that state. If
testing determines that they meet the necessary requirements for that
state, then they would be so recognized by that state's licensing body
for that subject area. As military members continue in the service,
additional training or education would be available and could be
counted as continuing training or education credits to retain state
certification or licensure status. For those who did not pass the
equivalency test, they would know the areas in which they need
additional course work and, once completed, would be able to retake the
test.
Some may offer that providing training linked to certification and
licensure will make recruitment and retention harder. We counter that
in fact recruitment and retention would both be enhanced. The Services
could require a service obligation as they do through their TA Program.
Individuals interested in joining the service would not see actually
doing so as a roadblock to an eventual civilian career, thus removing
another impediment to a seamless transition from military service.
Servicemembers would be assured that they could more easily move into a
civilian job once they fulfill their military obligations, or retire,
and thus continue contributing to the economy instead of drawing
unemployment wages or becoming homeless once they separate.
We continue to stress the importance of removing unnecessary
barriers from the path of our highly trained and qualified
servicemembers as they transition from military to civilian life. We
recommend that Congress engage in a national dialogue, working closely
with the DoD, VA and DoL as well as employers, trade unions, and
licensure and credentialing entities to finally put in place a clear
process so military personnel are able to take equivalency tests and
receive civilian equivalent apprentice or journeyman status and
licensure for the states in which they choose to live after leaving the
military. This would honor their military service and allow them to
more easily transition into a civilian occupation without the need for
redundant training or apprenticeships.
Question 6: How competitive are salaries for DVOPs and LVERs
nationwide?
Answer: Comparing DVOPs and LVERs state employee job ratings
anecdotally to their equivalent Federal sector peers, they may not
necessarily be considered in competitive pay grades. They could likely
be rated as GS-7s without an undergraduate degree, GS-9s with an
undergraduate degree, and GS-10s or 11s with a graduate degree. Of the
more than 2,000 DVOPs/LVER positions nationwide, the annual turnover
rate has been approximately 20 percent. This could be attributed to
their initially being hired by a state as DVOPs or LVERs at the
aforementioned entry level grades and eventually finding another
position within the state government at higher salaries. This turnover
consequently requires new candidates to be trained by NVTI, new
relationships to be built by DVOPs with employers and new LVERs to get
to know the veterans' community in their states. These positions are
crucial because they are often the first support contacts newly
discharged veterans will have as they make the difficult transition to
civilian life. We would encourage Congress to obtain a comprehensive
understanding of the competitiveness of DVOPs and LVERs beyond
anecdotal conclusions we may offer.
Question 7: Do you believe that VETS is lowering their goals to
match actual performance Measures 1 & 4?
Answer: Performance Measures are the Federal job training program
common measures used by DoL for employment programs and serve as
efficiency measures that reflect the quality of the service provided.
Performance Measure #1 is the percent of veteran participants employed
in the first quarter after they exit the program and Performance
Measure #4 is the percent of disabled veteran participants employed in
the first quarter after they exit the program. DAV is concerned about
what appears to be a reduction in performance Measures 1 and 4 for FY
2012. While one could conclude that these standards are being lowered
to match actual performance, we do not have sufficient information from
which to offer a definitive opinion. Given DoD's investment in training
veterans when they were on active duty and now DoL's efforts to assist
them in finding employment through the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
program, it seems more reasonable to focus on increasing the
performance measure targets, not decreasing them.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
Mr. Raymond C. Kelley
Director, National Legislative Service
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Kelley:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
and deliverable by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Questions for the Record from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on
Veterans Employment and Training Service's
Budget and State Grant Program
Questions for the Record
Question 1: In your opinion, how effective is the DVOP/LVER
program?
Answer: VFW believes the DVOP/LVER program is not as effective as
it should be. Most DVOP and LVER employees are dedicated to delivering
services to veterans. However, they are often over worked with tasks
that are outside their scope of work. As outlined in testimony, staff
members are fulfilling tasks that are not specifically assigned to
them. 2007 report found that only 21 percent of veterans who are
seeking employment use any type of state employment service. Also, the
grant system that provides money to the states is a disincentive in
reducing the number of unemployed veterans in each state, status quo
ensures that each state will continue to receive the same amount of
funding each year.
Question 2: Do you believe DVOPs and LVERs are properly trained to
provide employment services?
Answer: Yes, DVOPs and LVERs receive quality training; however,
this training must be provided in a timely manner and VFW believes that
students must be held accountable through testing after each class.
Currently, there are employees who are assisting veterans who are
awaiting training and when they do receive training it is based on an
``absorb what you can'' format that doesn't indicate whether or not the
DVOP or LVER gained the knowledge to properly do their jobs.
Question 3: Do you think that the staffing and funding level for
Disabled Veteran's Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives is adequate to properly address the
employment needs of our veteran population?
Answer: VFW believes that the only way to truly know if staffing
and funding levels are appropriate is to reevaluate the scope of work
of DVOPs and LVERs and determine from that evaluation what the needs
are. Over the years, DVOPs and LVERs continually have more tasks
assigned to them. Their job should be easy, work with local employers
so they can be a conduit for job-seeking veterans and assist veterans
who needs support services to help them qualify for jobs. Over time
this roll has changed, forcing DVOPs and LVERs to focus on added task,
such as outreach, TAP classes and in many cases split their time with
helping non-veterans with in the Employment One-Stop.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
Mr. Robert W. Madden
Assistant Director, National Economic Commission
The American Legion
1605 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Madden:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
The American Legion
Washington, DC.
April 18, 2011
Honorable Bruce L. Braley,
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Ranking Member Braley:
I respectfully submit the following responses to your additional
questions from the Subcommittee hearing on Veterans Employment and
Training Service's Budget and State Grant Program conducted on March 3,
2011:
Question 1: Should States that fail to meet the grant program
requirements lose their funding?
Answer: The idea of taking away State grant program funds because
States do not meet the minimal requirements sounds good in practice,
but taking away veterans employment resources and opportunities does
not help veterans in the long run. The State Grant program is monitored
by DoL-VETS staff and produce quarterly reports for the agency to
review. This process needs to be enhanced to show what the LVER/DVOPs
are accomplishing. Identifying possible fraud of the State Grant
Program should be monitored. Only after multiple attempts to eradicate
any possible issues with no compliance by the States should the funding
for the ``Jobs for Veterans'' State Grant Program be taken away.
Question 2: What are the major inconsistencies of the JVSG?
Answer: DVOPs provide disabled and eligible veterans with training
opportunities and intensive services to meet their employment needs. In
addition, LVERs provide outreach to employers as well as assist
veterans in gaining employment by conducting job search workshops and
establishing job search support groups. They also facilitate
employment, training, and placement services to veterans. These
responsibilities sound daunting, but States have relegated DVOP/LVERs
to providing administrative tasks outside the scope of their job
descriptions. The American Legion wants to see DVOP/LVERs performing
their assigned duties and not providing additional support to their
offices. With unemployment numbers continuing to rise for veterans of
all wartime eras, especially the OEF/OIF era, it is imperative DVOP/
LVERs fulfill their assigned duties.
Congress should also ask, ``Are we getting our return on
investment?'' with this program. To provide transparency that the
States are accomplishing their efforts to provide eligible veterans
with employment, a quarterly report needs to be developed in a format
easily understood by all interested stakeholders.
Question 3: In your opinion, how effective is the DVOP/LVER
program?
Answer: Based on our research the program is not operating at an
effective level in all States and there seems to be an inadequate
amount of data to easily and quantifiably demonstrate success/failure.
As mentioned above, the program needs measurements that are adequate
and easily understood. DVOP/LVERs understand their job and are
passionate about servicing disabled and other eligible veterans, but
the States are not necessarily focused on the same goals that DoL-VETS
sees as priorities.
Question 4: Do you think the staffing and funding level for
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives is adequate to properly address the
employment needs of our veterans population?
Answer: The American Legion has advocated for proper and adequate
funding for the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Program. The American
Legion does support the budget proposal for FY 2012, yet at the same
time requests a more effective program, thereby increasing the number
of eligible veterans who are receiving the specific resources to
include job placement.
Question 5: Do you believe that more reports from VETS will improve
VETS performance?
Answer: VETS will improve their performance when States improve
their transparency and prove the effectiveness of their State grant
program. Adding another report does not necessarily improve a program,
unless it provides specific and definitive data that is useful to those
who are responsible for measuring the program
success.
Thank you for your continued commitment to America's veterans and th
eir families.
Sincerely,
Robert Madden
Assistant Director, National Economic Commission
cc: Chairman Marlin Stutzman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 7, 2011
Mr. Richard F. Weidman
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs
Vietnam Veterans of America
8719 Colesville Road, Suite 100
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Weidman:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's Budget and State Grant
Program on March 3, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Questions for the Record from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's
Budget and State Grant Program
1. In your opinion how effective is the DVOP/LVER program?
2. Do you think that the staffing and funding level for Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives is adequate to properly address the employment needs of
our veteran population?
3. Does VETS have enough DVOPs/LVERs?
4. What is your opinion of the part time DVOPs and LVERs?
5. Do you believe DVOPs and LVERs are properly trained to provide
employment services?
6. Is the Veterans' Employment and Training Service program
meeting its goal of assisting veterans with employment?
[NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED.]