[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROLE OF THE STATE APPROVING AGENCIES IN ENSURING QUALITY EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-134 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DAVID JOLLY, Florida
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Nancy Dolan, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
BILL FLORES, Texas, Chairman
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado Member
PAUL COOK, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
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
----------
Page
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Role of the State Approving Agencies in Ensuring Quality
Education Programs for Veterans................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bill Flores, Chairman............................................ 1
Ann Kirkpatrick.................................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Veterans Service,
Veterans of Foregin Wars of the United States.................. 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 26
Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President of Government Affairs,
Student Veterans of America.................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 29
Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Veteran
Employment and Education Division, The American Legion......... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
Mr. Keith Glindemann, Vice President and Legislative Chair,
National Association of Veterans; Program Administrators....... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 36
Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs......... 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 42
Accompanied by:
MG Robert M. Worley II USAF (Ret.), Director, Education
Service, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs
Dr. Joseph W. Wescott, President, National Association of State
Approving Agencies............................................. 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 49
FOR THE RECORD
National Association of School Advocates for Veterans; Education
and Success.................................................... 52
THE ROLE OF THE STATE APPROVING AGENCIES IN ENSURING QUALITY EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS
----------
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bill Flores
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Flores, Coffman, Wenstrup,
Takano, and Kirkpatrick.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL FLORES
Mr. Flores. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. I want to begin by welcoming everyone here this morning,
and I look forward to hearing from both panels here today.
Today, the subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing
entitled ``The Role of the State Approving Agencies in Ensuring
Quality Education Programs For Veterans.'' The state approving
agencies, or SAAs, are VA's vital frontline partners in
ensuring that veterans receive the quality education and
training that they deserve. The SAAs have a long history of
serving veterans dating back to when they were first created by
Congress as part of the original GI Bill in the Veterans
Readjustment Act of 1944.
Although the education system has evolved over the last 70-
plus years, the need and function of the SAAs has not
diminished. It is important that with the billions of dollars
spent on GI Bill benefits annually, that there is proper
oversight over education and training programs so that veterans
are enrolled in quality programs that fit their needs.
Today, the need for correct and thorough oversight is more
necessary than ever with the plethora of different programs
available to veterans. There are now more schools, many of
which have multiple campuses spread across the country. There
are more training programs and options such as distance
learning to access an extensive list of different programs.
Furthermore, online education is becoming a more attractive
option for veterans and many fully accredited institutions have
a majority of their students participating through online
courses.
With all of the different avenues of education now
available, I believe that today's conversation is very
important if we want to remain confident in the fact that we
are doing everything we can to get veterans into programs that
will be meaningful and useful to them for their future success.
I want to take a minute to commend the current leadership of
both the VA and the National Association of State Approving
Agencies for their efforts in the past few years to work more
collaboratively on their shared mission.
This partnership, along with the input and assistance from
other stakeholders, such as the veterans service organizations,
the National Association of Veterans' Program Administrators,
and many others is what assures us all that veterans are
getting the quality instruction they deserve from institutions
that have the veterans' best interest in mind.
With the increased level of benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill over the years and the passage of the in-state provision
and expanded Fry Scholarship benefits under the Veterans
Access, Choice and Accountability Act, as well as the growing
popularity of nondegree and OJT apprenticeship programs, it is
important that these partnerships not only continue to grow,
but that thorough oversight of education and training programs
continue to be a focus. It is also important that, as the
education sector continues to evolve, oversight over these
programs evolves along with it.
I am looking forward to discussing the legislative changes
that the National Association of State Approving Agencies has
proposed as these proposals attempt to restructure the role and
mission of the SAAs for decades to come. I hope that we can
have a fruitful discussion on the proposal in the preparation
for the subcommittee's legislative agenda in the 114th
Congress.
I also look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
today on their view of the current state of the higher
education system as it relates to veterans' education benefits,
as well as how they view the current structure, duties, and
mission of the state approving agencies, and how we can work
together to improve the effectiveness and ensure quality
education for all student veterans.
With that, I recognize Ms. Kirkpatrick, and I would ask
unanimous consent that the submitted testimony from the
National Association of School Advocates for Veterans Education
and Success be entered into the record. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANN KIRKPATRICK
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, we are here to discuss how state approving agencies
help maintain the quality of education for our veterans using
GI Bill education benefits. Now, we all know how important GI
Bill benefits are to our Nation's veterans. They are often
critical to ensuring veterans' success as they transition to
civilian life.
The education landscape has seen some major changes over
the years with the swift growth of for-profit colleges, online
programs, and other nontraditional forms of postsecondary
education and training. With these changes, we must ensure that
bad actors, particularly those interested solely in profit, are
not taking advantage of our veterans in order to get their GI
Bill benefits.
Unfortunately, due to a loophole in current law, those bad
actors are being encouraged to aggressively recruit veterans.
The 90-10 rule, which requires for-profit colleges and
universities to receive at least 10 percent of their revenues
from sources other than Federal student aid, does not include
GI Bill benefits as Federal student aid. That means the more
veterans with GI Bill benefits that enroll, the more non-
Federal student aid revenue they have and, in turn, the more
Federal student aid they are allowed to take in. This loophole
in the 90-10 rule is just one example of how ill-intentioned
education corporations are taking advantage of veterans and
other students.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about
the role that state approving agencies have or would like to
have in ensuring that institutions of higher education are
meeting the needs of our veterans.
And, Mr. Chairman, I move that my colleague Mark Takano's
statement be submitted for the record.
Mr. Flores. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Flores. I thank Ms. Kirkpatrick for her comments. And I
want to recognize our first panel. It is already seated. Today
we have Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci, who is the deputy director of
national veterans service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Mr.
William Hubbard, vice president of government affairs for
Student Veterans of America; and Mr. Steve Gonzalez, assistant
director of the National Veteran Employment and Education
Division for the American Legion.
I want to thank you for your past service and for your
continuing service on behalf of our Nation's veterans.
And, then last but not least, we have Mr. Keith Glindemann,
vice president and legislative chair for the National
Association of Veterans' Program Administrators.
By the way, congratulations on your new position. We look
forward to working with you.
Thank all of you for being here this morning. Your complete
written statements will become a part of the hearing record and
each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes for your oral
statement.
Let's begin with Mr. Gallucci. You are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the VFW, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the role that state approving agencies
play in ensuring success for today's student veterans.
We have made significant progress over the years to improve
veteran access to education, not just by commissioning quality
benefit programs, but also by improving access to pre-
enrollment counseling and consumer resources, affording
recourse to veterans who become victims of fraud, waste, and
abuse, and most recently ensuring that no public school can
hold a veteran's military service against them when determining
eligibility for in-state tuition. The subcommittee and my
fellow panelists should be proud of these accomplishments, but
we are not done yet.
Today's hearing and any resulting legislative changes
should serve as a starting point for the broader discussion on
the future role of the SAAs. Some in higher education insist
that SAAs only duplicate the effort of accreditors and the
Department of Education. The VFW refutes this notion because
the scope of the SAA's responsibilities goes well beyond that
of traditional higher ed.
The VFW believes that we must periodically revisit
oversight mechanisms and at times change roles and
responsibilities to suit the needs of an ever-changing veterans
community. And we encourage this committee to host future
hearings to candidly discuss new and innovative ways to
leverage a strong network of SAAs to foster quality outcomes
for student veterans.
The VFW proudly serves as constructive partner with the
National Association of State Approving Agencies, as well as
VA, in ensuring student veterans have access to quality
training programs. With this in mind, much of our testimony
will focus on NASAA's recommendations on ways to improve the
effectiveness of SAAs.
For the past few years, NASAA has expressed frustration at
the inability of SAAs to inspect and approve noncollege degree
programs at nonprofit schools which were considered ``deemed
approved'' through Public Law 111-377. After the law went into
effect, the SAAs found that some schools started to develop NCD
programs of questionable value. When SAAs sought to inspect
these programs, they were denied access until VA intervened.
However, SAAs still lack the statutory authority to properly
approve NCD programs at nonprofit schools, meaning some
programs continue to operate as deemed approved until SAAs
learn about and inspect them. This is why the VFW supports
extending statutory authority so SAAs can inspect NCDs to
evaluate quality.
NASAA has also reported that public institutions of higher
learning have started the commissioned flight training programs
as free electives, targeting veterans for enrollment. According
to the SAAs, schools are adding such programs because of the
uncapped reimbursement offered by VA through the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
The fact that these programs have sprouted up in the few
years since the new benefit ramped up is a clear indication
that SAAs must have greater authority to inspect and approve
these programs. Moreover, the VFW agrees with NASAA's
recommendation to establish a reimbursement cap for flight
programs commensurate with the private institution cap already
established for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
These new criteria are not an indictment of the quality of
these new flight programs, but instead are a quality control
measure to ensure that benefits are equitably administered for
veterans who choose to enroll.
Next, under current law, VA must conduct annual compliance
surveys on all facilities with at least 300 student veterans
enrolled. The VFW agrees with NASAA's assertion that this is an
impossible mission and one that neglects institutions that may
face significant compliance issues. The current statutory
requirement can mean that some schools will go years without a
compliance survey as VA and the SAAs struggle to survey schools
with large veteran populations. Such a requirement can hinder
the response to at-risk programs that may enroll far fewer
veterans while wasting significant time on inspecting perennial
top performers.
The VFW agrees with NASAA that statutory requirements
should change to ensure the VA can conduct compliance surveys
at all institutions at least once every 3 years. VA and the
NASAA should also be given flexibility in determining
priorities in conducting annual compliance surveys. In the
past, this kind of collaboration may have been difficult, but
thanks to the new GI Bill complaint system, the VA is confident
the VA and the SAAs have access to information through which
they can identify trends and conduct risk-based reviews.
Finally, after shopping around and speaking to school
officials, the VFW could not identify a single preparatory
course through which a veteran could use his or her GI Bill
benefits. The ability to use benefits to prepare for complex
entrance exams like the LSAT, GMAT, or GRE is a major selling
point for veterans and a benefit readily discussed on VA's GI
Bill FAQ. The VFW believes that the law is unclear about how
these programs are to be treated for GI Bill approval, and we
seek clarification on how VA should approve such courses so
that veterans can take advantage of the opportunity.
The VFW firmly believes that the SAAs remain a valuable
partner in ensuring quality for veterans in higher education.
We agree with many of NASAA's recommendations. However, we also
reiterate our call for periodic discussions on how to better
leverage the SAAs to ensure veterans' success in higher
education.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my testimony, and I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallucci appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci.
Mr. Hubbard, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting Student Veterans of
America to testify today. With this opportunity to discuss the
state approving agencies and the National Association of State
Approving Agencies, we will discuss their mission,
effectiveness, and recent legislative proposal.
With only 230 staff across 49 States, the SAA are
responsible for over 7,000 facilities and more than 100,000
programs--this, in addition to over 1 million annual users of
GI Bill benefits.
Congress effectively established the SAA in 1945 when they
passed Public Law 79-268, authorizing State governors to
appoint their own approval agencies. As a mechanism to prevent
so-called fly-by-night schools from taking advantage of
returning veterans, the SAA became the frontline defense to
ensure that those veterans receive a quality education.
Recent changes to the role of the SAA has affected the
allocation of finite resources, shifting them from areas where
those resources are needed most. Then, in 2011, Public Law 111-
377 impacted how the SAA are expected to operate.
Responsibility for performing approvals was split to include
the Secretary of VA, while the SAA were to increase their role
in compliance measures.
This shift in resources away from the significant duty to
perform approvals has diverted specialized resources away from
mission-critical functions. The SAA bring an implicit
capability which should be given greater emphasis: the capacity
for judicious discretion.
For student veterans, the SAA across the country have the
ability to call for a review of a school, even if no specific
standards are triggered. The goal of the SAA, in our view,
should be to have their success go unseen by the student
veteran. If the SAA perform their job well, the true
beneficiaries should remain unaware. Those that benefit from
the due diligence of these professionals are the student
veterans on campuses nationwide.
Student veterans who successfully transition serve as a
demonstration of the important work performed by the SAA, that
these student veterans can count on receiving a quality
education for the GI Bill benefits they earned. Indeed, they do
not have to question whether or not their GI Bill benefits will
be well spent as the SAA provide necessary oversight to ensure
their education will be one of quality.
To further advance the effectiveness of the SAA, several
things should be addressed regarding the authorities and
resources. Despite the general effectiveness of the SAA, we
believe there are some areas that require attention. SVA agrees
with NASAA that the assumed approval of schools is risky for
student veterans. Implicit approval is not always a safe
assumption. Additionally, VA being included in the state
approval process is also an issue worth reviewing. The
responsibility is no longer the primary duty of the SAA. This
authority should be returned to the SAA, given their subject
matter expertise in the field.
Lastly, we have serious concerns about the potential abuse
of GI Bill benefits. While no specific cases have been yet
addressed, the ability of schools to contract out certain
programs for exorbitant fees is a serious issue. For some
flight programs or electives, the results of the government
covering these costs of these programs is well beyond the
market norm. With the intent of creating a clear and reasonable
solution, SVA accepts the NASAA proposal to reasonably cap such
programs.
Ultimately, we believe the approval process to be the
preventative medicine for issues which would otherwise stem
from low-quality programs underserving the interest of student
veterans. SVA accepts the legislative proposal presented by
NASAA, and it encourages the body to empower the SAA to pursue
their mission with the original intent of Congress.
We thank the chairman, ranking member, and the subcommittee
members for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of
veterans in higher education. As always, we welcome your
feedback and questions. And we look forward to continuing to
work with this subcommittee, the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, and the entire Congress to ensure the success of all
generations of veterans through education. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Mr. Hubbard, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Gonzalez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, sir.
Good morning, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the
national commander, Mike Helm, and the 2.4 million members of
the American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the
work you do in support of our servicemembers, veterans, and
their families. We thank you especially for holding this
hearing.
With the constantly shifting economic and social landscapes
faced by veterans, it is important to continually evaluate,
reevaluate, and, if needed, revise the roles of the state
approving agencies in order to protect veterans and taxpayers.
The American Legion is proud to work with the National
Association of State Approving Agencies in order to provide
veterans with the best education and training opportunities
possible.
In December 2010, Congress passed Post-9/11 Veterans
Education Assistance Improvement Act of 2010, which was signed
into law in January 2011. That bill contained language that
impacted the role of the SAAs in terms of program approval
authority. Due to the expansion of the GI Bill, eligible
programs, to include many for-profit vocational training
programs, nonregistered apprenticeships, and on-the-job
training establishments, the law deemed approved many programs
that were otherwise accredited or approved by other
institutions, such as the Department of Education recognized
accrediting bodies. That was done in order to relieve some of
the workload of the SAAs and to avoid redundancies between the
work done by the SAAs and other accrediting bodies.
While the American Legion applauds the expansion of the GI
Bill applicability, we find it problematic that SAAs have been
removed from a large portion of the approval process. SAAs
focus specifically on the GI Bill and serve to protect it, and,
by extension, the veterans using it. Furthermore, as federally
authorized arms of their respective State governments, SAAs are
in a unique position to evaluate programs that are offered in
their State, given the proximity. This arrangement also
maintains the federalism required by the Constitution.
Therefore, the American Legion supports the SAAs and believes
that they should have a role in the reviewing, evaluating, and
approving all educational and training programs for GI Bill
use.
While some may argue that the work that the SAAs do is
redundant to the work of accrediting bodies, the American
Legion believes that the SAA's approval is, in fact, unique.
This is because the charge of the SAAs is to specifically focus
on protecting GI Bill funds, while traditional accreditation
provided by the Department of Ed-recognized accrediting bodies
does a significant portion of work toward ensuring quality
programs. SAA approval should work in tandem with that
accreditation, rather than the stark division that is
represented in the current statute. However, under current law,
SAAs lack the statutory authority to inspect many questionable
programs that have sprung up since the passage of the Post-9/11
GI Bill at not-for-profit institutions.
The American Legion supports the portion of the legislation
proposed by the NASAA that would statutorily make SAAs the
primary approving body for all programs approved for GI Bill
use. Programs may still be deemed approved, but at the
discretion of the SAAs, not the Secretary of VA.
The American Legion agrees with the NASAA recommendation
regarding changes to flight training. Not-for-profit
institutions would take advantage of the GI Bill by charging
exorbitant tuition and fees for this training is disheartening.
Fixing this loophole helps to protect the GI Bill by ensuring
that the costs are kept low while still allowing beneficiaries
to pursue such training, if required or desired. Furthermore,
in cases where the institution contracts with a third party to
provide the training, the American Legion believes that the SAA
should still have approval authority.
Additionally, the American Legion supports a proposed shift
in the statutory requirement for SAA compliance surveys. As
NASAA has indicated, the current mandate is needlessly
burdensome, and it is frankly impossible, given the limited
resources available. In light of this, the American Legion
believes that their funding should be increased to ensure that
they are able to adequately perform their crucial role. Even if
SAA's compliance service requirement is reduced, an increased
role as primary approving body seems likely to require the
resources.
The American Legion supports SAAs and recognizes the
crucial role they play in ensuring quality programs for
veterans using the GI Bill benefit. This hearing should serve
as a starting point for an ongoing conversation regarding the
role that SAAs currently playing in quality assurance. How
SAAs' approvals interact with accreditation remains somewhat
unclear. This legislation would make strides toward clarify and
codifying the terms of that interaction.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, we thank the
subcommittee for looking into this issue, and it is crucial to
veterans, and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Mr. Gonzalez, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Glindemann, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH GLINDEMANN
Mr. Glindemann. Thank you.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, my name is Keith
Glindemann. I am the vice president of the National Association
of Veterans' Program Administrators, NAVPA. I appreciate and
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss NAVPA's view on the role of state approving agencies in
ensuring quality education programs for veterans. I am
accompanied on this trip by Marc Barker, who is our current
NAVPA president.
It is my hope to help provide some insight on this topic
from the viewpoint of the individuals that are charged to
implement the policies and procedures on veterans' education
benefits at our colleges and universities across this great
Nation.
NAVPA was founded in 1975 and it is a nationally recognized
nonprofit organization of institutions and individuals who are
involved in the operation of veterans affairs programs and/or
the delivery of services to veterans as school-certifying
officials. We are devoted to promoting professional competency
and efficiency through our association's membership and with
others involved in veterans education assistance programs. We
believe that the development, improvement, and extension of
opportunities to any veteran or their dependent for their
personal growth or development to be a noble cause.
Relationship with the SAAs. NAVPA has worked hand in hand
with our Nation's state approving agencies for many years. They
have been instrumental in helping our organization provide our
members with comprehensive training sessions at national and
regional conferences, offering technical assistance with
complex issues regarding the certification of GI Bill benefits,
as well as providing subject matter expertise on policies and
procedures.
We, as an organization, have seen the state approving
agencies always assist in a timely manner. This is especially
beneficial as it is often hard to get a quick response from our
overburdened VA education liaison representatives.
Compliance surveys. Current statutory requirements require
that any institution with at least 300 GI Bill recipients have
a compliance survey conducted annually. This requirement is
mandated regardless of the results of the prior year's survey.
This requirement results in overburdened inspectors revisiting
schools that have proven to be good stewards and in full
compliance. The negative effect of this requirement results in
many smaller institutions with less than 300 GI Bill recipients
to go years between surveys. This creates an inequity among
schools where benefits are being applied. Within NAVPA, we have
been told of institutions that have not had a compliance survey
since the inception of the Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill.
By relooking at the 300 mandated inspection rule, a more
favorable one could be determined that would allow institutions
to be on more equal footing in regards to compliance surveys.
This could also allow SAAs to be freed up to provide additional
technical assistance and training. Potential compliance issues
could be avoided by having better-trained SCOs on the front end
of the process. This would reduce issues of noncompliance and
help to preserve benefits.
Deemed approved. Section 203 of Public Law 111-377 deemed
certain programs of education to be approved for VA educational
benefits. NAVPA's membership supports the current deemed
approved language in 38 U.S.C. 3672 for accredited standard
college degree programs offered at public or not-for-profit
proprietary IHLs that are accredited by an agency or
association recognized by the Secretary of Education.
NAVPA respectfully asks the legislature and the Department
of Veterans Affairs to clarify and define ``deemed approved''
relative to what the interpretation of a standard college
degree program is. In the absence of a clear definition of
standard college program, our member institutions are being
inundated with proposals and requests from training programs to
enter into third-party contracted training agreements so that
the nonapproved programs can operate under the umbrella of
``deemed approved'' as standard college degree programs without
actually going through the approval process, be it the VA or
the SAA.
In closing, NAVPA's membership institutions strive to
always be in compliance with all regulations when assisting our
students in utilizing their VA educational benefits. As an
organization, NAVPA looks forward to a continued strong
relationship with the state approving agencies, the VA, and
others charged with assisting our veterans in achieving their
educational goals.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
committee, thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glindemann appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Glindemann, for your testimony.
I thank the panel for your testimony. And I now yield myself 5
minutes for questions.
For each of you--and we will start with you, Mr. Gallucci--
what is your position on the SAA's proposed legislative changes
to the GI Bill as it pertains to flight schools?
Mr. Gallucci. As we laid out in our testimony, we support
establishing a cap and allowing SAAs broader authority to
inspect these programs and evaluate them for quality. The
reason we support establishing that cap is because what the
SAAs have reported and what VA seems to have confirmed is that
these schools seem to just be charging whatever they want. It
is not commensurate with what the economy would reflect the
cost of that program should be.
So our concern is they are basically optimized to what the
Post-9/11 GI Bill will pay out right now. And unless we get
that under control, they are going to continue to charge
exorbitant fees for that, which VA will have to reimburse for.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for your question. Similarly, we
support NAVPA's proposal, more from a standpoint of the
concerns over waste of the GI Bill. As money goes out the door
way beyond market norms, this is ultimately decreasing the
return on investment with the GI Bill, which is of serious
concern to us.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Chairman. I will echo the same sentiment
as my two colleagues. We support SAA's recommendation on flight
school. Just like Will and Ryan have indicated, it is also
ensuring that we are fiscally responsible in how the GI Bill is
being applied, what is the return on investment, and ensuring
that the SAAs can actually review the actual programs that are
being offered, regardless of where they are being offered.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Glindemann.
Mr. Glindemann. Thank you, Chairman Flores, for the
question. Our position at NAVPA would be that we support the
State Approving Agencies' recommendation on this. Fee caps are
necessary to help preserve the whole program as we look at the
use of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The other piece would be that we
need to ensure that people aren't taking flight classes in an
open elective status and therefore burning through the benefit.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hubbard, throughout your written statement you referred
to your belief that the SAAs need to return to their core
competency. Can you expand on that recommendation?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes. And thank you for the question.
The SAAs, their original role--and it is an approval body--
has been somewhat mitigated by additional expectations placed
on them, in particular their performance of compliance
measures. We believe compliance measures are more of an audit
function and could be done in other entities. For them to take
their subject matter expertise and place it toward activities
that are not their core competency is ultimately denigrating
their comparative advantage in the space.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Glindemann, one of the biggest challenges that arises
when it comes to veterans' education, as I understand it, is
the high turnover rate and the need for enhanced training for
school-certifying officials. Can you comment on these issues--
you touched on it a little bit--and how we can work
collaboratively to address the retention and turnover and
training of these individuals?
Mr. Glindemann. Thank you.
Yes. The main thing with our school-certifying officials
are that they often could be at a college where they wear many
hats. They are not only a school-certifying official. They
could also be an admissions person, evaluations personnel. The
other thing is that school-certifying officials who only do
that duty also may move within the structure of their college,
therefore having a high turnover.
Currently, we have the School Certifying Official Manual
that the VA updates and puts out to us every 6 months, which is
a great tool. It is approximately 280 pages. The Quick
Reference Guide for Certifying VA Benefits is 120 pages.
Mr. Flores. Wow.
Mr. Glindemann. Sometimes that can be like drinking from
the fire hose when you are just trying to do that.
The best types of training are physical training where the
people can actually be in front of the system. When being
certified to be able to certify benefits, the VA once system
offers a training program prior to being able to enter stuff.
That is a great first step. However, something more thorough
and that could be offered, whether regionally trained or SAAs
actually in the schools, would be beneficial.
Mr. Flores. Okay. So you believe there should be some sort
of standardized training with a certification for this position
at schools?
Mr. Glindemann. Absolutely.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Approaching the end of my 5 minutes, I am going to release
the rest of my time. And I will recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Takano, for 5 minutes for his questions.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
holding the hearing on this really important topic.
Mr. Gonzalez, can you elaborate a bit more about how you
perceive the difference between what SAAs do and what an
accrediting body does?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. The accrediting body that is
usually recognized by the Department of Education, they look at
the whole institution, and that is sometimes done within a 1-
year to 10-year time span, where the SAAs, of course, work in
tandem with the accreditation body. But what they do is they
accredit the actual programs that are being offered to the
actual beneficiary, and that is an ongoing process where,
again, they are different in their scope and their bandwidth
and what their actual jobs and role is.
And to be honest, SAAs, when they were created, were
totally created--like my colleague Will has stated--out of the
first GI Bill and then, of course, leading into the second GI
Bill in the 1950 for the Korean War vets where it actually
helped create the regional accreditation body to help ensure
that these public institutions that were being created to
absorb the returning veterans, that they had quality programs
and the institutions had the right faculty and the institutions
had the right type of policies in place. And, again, the
accreditation body is really a peer-to-peer, once every 10
years type of evaluation, where the SAAs is an ongoing process.
And they continue to have an ongoing process because for
individual institutions to continue to have their programs
approved, they have to resubmit any time a course is changed.
So the course catalogues always have to be resubmitted to the
SAAs to make sure that those programs are meeting the
standards.
Mr. Takano. And that happens ongoingly and more frequently?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. Do you believe the VA, as a fiduciary, should
still play a role in the approval process or that SAAs should
be entrusted to make the decision on their own?
Mr. Gonzalez. We think that the SAA, being that they are
the primary, they are actually on the ground, they know the
schools that they are working with, they have the knowledge and
institutional knowledge, that they should be the primary
approval authority when looking at programs.
And if you take it one step further, that is the whole
purpose of being approved. You have everything, roughly, 137 to
140 SAAs, individuals throughout the 50 States and, I think,
U.S. territories, and you have 7,000 programs. That is the
whole reason why ``deemed approved'' was put into play.
Now, that shouldn't say that an SAA shouldn't be able to
go, as an example, go to Harvard and not look at their program.
Granted, I wouldn't think Harvard would not have a great
program. But it shouldn't take away that the SAA should not be
able to still go to Harvard and say, I want to at least inspect
to make sure that you are still meeting the standards we need
to protect the GI Bill, and by that to protect the veteran
themselves.
Mr. Takano. But should the VA still play a role in the
process or----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. Okay.
Mr. Gonzalez. I mean, we shouldn't take VA out completely
neither.
Mr. Takano. Well, VA should be the primary.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. VA should be the primary.
Mr. Hubbard, do you think that the SAAs--on a little bit
probably different track--do you think that the SAAs are
successfully weeding out programs that lead to essentially
worthless degrees, like those that promise to prepare student
veterans for entry in a particular profession but do not
qualify them for the necessary license or exam?
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question. In short, yes.
They are the best option for quality that we have right now.
There are a lot of different measures in conversation to try
and approach that level of quality. But right now the SAAs for
student veterans are the best option we have. Again, they have
that judicious ability to look at the program and if something
doesn't quite look right they can ask for a review. I think
that is a very valuable quality that they bring to the table,
and it is something that just hasn't been achieved otherwise.
Mr. Takano. But are they--I mean, you say they are the best
option--but are they successfully able to weed out these
programs?
Mr. Hubbard. I will give you an example. In Virginia there
were a couple schools that were performing some questionable
activities. Strong SAA there. They were able to review the
program, and the end result was convictions and jail time for
those who were taking advantage of the system and really at the
end of the day harming student veterans.
Mr. Takano. Could we do this better? I mean, could the SAAs
be doing a better job? I mean, I don't dispute that you think
they are the best option now. But I have got a sense that there
are a lot of programs that still are out there that are wasting
our veterans' money----
Mr. Hubbard. Right.
Mr. Takano [continuing]. And wasting the Federal
Government's money. How could we do this better? If you would
take that.
Mr. Gallucci. Oh, Mr. Takano, I would like to jump in
there, if I could, quickly.
Mr. Takano. Please.
Mr. Gallucci. I think that is one of the reasons we are
here today, to talk about the way that they conduct compliance
surveys. And I think this is one of the reasons why we support
changing the statutory requirement that they only go to schools
that have more than 300 veterans every year.
With the commissioning of the complaint system, we now have
access to a lot more information. We have seen the SAAs do it.
It was brought to our attention about the expansion of
noncollege degree programs, about the flight school issue. They
are aware that this is happening. But giving them the authority
to go in and conduct more audits will strengthen their ability
to do it.
I agree with Will that they are the best option we have
right now, and I think the proposals that we are discussing
today would only strengthen their ability to serve as that
frontline defense.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I went over my time,
but I thought it was an important question. But I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Coffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank you all for your service,
those who have served in the military, and thank you so much
for what you do on behalf of veterans in achieving their
educational goals.
I think that the fundamental mistake made by the Congress--
and I was an Army veteran, I went to the University of Colorado
under the Vietnam-era GI Bill, which gave veterans an amount of
money in order to pay for room and board and tuition based on
pretty much the average cost of going to a public university in
the country. And then, we made decisions. We were the ones,
empowered to make decisions based on cost and quality.
I think after Congress tried to save money in post-Vietnam
by going to this VEAP program, that I don't think was very
effective. That was a matching program. Then we have the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, that I think was pretty much written by
institutions, educational institutions, for educational
institutions, whereby it was bifurcated from living expenses to
tuition and with tuition is uncapped.
I think you get the spiralling of inflation of tuition
where there is no shopping around, where the veteran is in the
marketplace. I think that was a big mistake, and I think we
ought to look at going back to that Vietnam-era plan where we
give an amount of money to a veteran and let the veteran shop
for what program. If they want to go to a private school. They
pay the difference, as we did. My decision then was to go to
the University of Colorado where my costs were covered.
Secondly, I am very concerned in our discussion today about
proprietary schools. Granted, there are abuses. This
administration has a gainful employment rule on proprietary
schools, and I think there are certainly bad ones, as there are
bad programs in public institutions that don't lead to jobs.
My father retired as a master sergeant from the United
States Army. He had no more than a GED. Started out at a
community college where he wanted to learn heating and air
conditioning repair, but he was forced to take electives. He
dropped out of that college, went to a proprietary trade school
under the GI Bill, learned the specific trade that he wanted,
heating and air conditioning, and eventually had a successful
small business that did that.
I am very concerned that it is more that this whole attack
on proprietary trade schools is really focused on the working
class Americans in terms of their ability to advance to the
middle class. My father could have gone to where I went to
school and studied anything that didn't lead to a job, taken a
major that wouldn't lead to a job, and that would have been
okay. But to go to a proprietary trade school to try and better
himself, that is not okay. There has got to be a balance.
The problem I have in asking a question is I am so opposed
to the existing system we have, because I think it doesn't
serve veterans, it doesn't serve taxpayers, and we need to
abandon it and go back to Vietnam-era plan.
Let me ask you, what you all are evaluating in terms of
these folks that go out and evaluate programs that are
available under the GI Bill. Do these same personnel look at
apprenticeship and on-the-job training for veterans? Do they
help in that process? And what can we do to make more
opportunities available to veterans who come back and want
jobs?
Mr. Gallucci. Well, thank you, Mr. Coffman. And, again,
thank you for your service as a fellow veteran. Always good to
have fellow veterans in Congress.
But, again, to your question about evaluating quality of
OJT and apprenticeship programs, this is one of the other
primary functions of the state approving agencies.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Good.
Mr. Gallucci. This is one of the reasons that we each, I
believe, outlined in our testimony, that we feel they play a
critical role. These are underutilized programs and for
veterans who don't want to pursue traditional higher ed, they
are certainly a viable career path and it is something that we
fully support.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, may I have an extension of my time so they
can answer the question?
Mr. Flores. Give you another 30 seconds.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Anybody else have anything?
Mr. Hubbard. If I can just add to that. I do like the point
that you made originally about being able to shop around with
your benefit. To the credit of the VA, the GI Bill comparison
tool is getting closer to that. It allows veterans to see the
benefits that they have and then compare that at different
schools. So I think that is getting closer to that ability to
shop around in that sense, and I think that is something that
is worth exploring in more detail.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Okay. We will offer my colleagues a second
round of questions so that we can wrap that one up if that is
okay with Mr. Coffman.
Ms. Kirkpatrick, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Let me first say that I really appreciate
the work you are doing as representatives of the veterans
service organizations. You are the eyes and ears of this
committee as we try to craft policy that is going to really
help our veterans. So I appreciate your coming to the Hill
today to our committee and having this discussion with us. It
is very important. So I just want to thank you.
Mr. Glindemann, I have a question with respect to the
compliance survey rules. How many institutions actually have
less than 300 GI Bill recipients? Any idea about that?
Mr. Glindemann. I couldn't answer that right now. I know
through our membership over 50 percent of our schools are under
300. And the biggest worry for us is that I think the VA
originally maybe or the intent of the rule was to get the big
recipients of GI Bill dollars. So when they came into a college
with over 300, if they could identify compliance issues there,
they could have more cost savings.
Unfortunately, then we look at the smaller schools. I
actually help oversee veterans services for over 35 campuses,
and one of my campuses only has about a dozen veterans at it.
So in theory it has its own facility code, so it would be under
a separate inspection. Those are kind of what you would think
of as the nickels and dimes because it is a lot smaller amounts
of money from the Post-9/11 GI Bill coming into that school.
However, they still have the same issues with training and the
same issues with just trying to make sure the program is
straight and with high turnover rates of their personnel.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. What do you think would be a better number
then, than 300? Should there be no number or should everyone go
through the compliance review? I mean, what are your thoughts
about that?
Mr. Glindemann. I would expand it that for your schools
that pass that don't have any major compliance issues, a 36-
month rule. I think if you could visit every school within 36
months, you would really get a true vision of what is out
there, stop issues as soon as they happen, and have cost
savings for the program as a whole.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Hubbard, could you describe for me a
model SAA that you envision or that is actually out there just
so we can know really what works well for our veterans?
Mr. Hubbard. Sure. So I think the biggest thing is to be
able to have a full spectrum of review. If an SAA is not able
to look at all the programs, it is going to be an incomplete
picture. So having that off the bat is a really important part.
In addition, the communication between the SAA and VA is
critical. With the JAC, the Joint Advisory Committee that is
set up and set to continue conversations, I think that is also
a critical aspect in that process. If they are not talking, the
benefits coming and going, it is not going to be clear how that
is working. So to have that Joint Advisory Committee, we do
look forward to seeing the work come from that and think that
will support that process quite well.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Gallucci, I introduced a bill that
would say if a veteran has a skill in the military, such as
EMT, that they can easily get certification without having to
go through all of the EMT training. And so my question is for
you, do you think that there should be an easier path for
approval of GI Bill benefits in noncollege degree programs such
as EMTs?
Mr. Gallucci. This is a really good question, and I may
defer to my colleague Steve to comment on this a little as
well.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Okay. That is fine.
Mr. Gallucci. Absolutely, as far as an easier path to
approving these kinds of programs. What I think the concern is,
though, is that the SAAs still have to play a role in that to
ensure the validity of these kinds of programs.
We have seen a lot of positive steps in improving the
transferability of military-acquired skills to the civilian job
market over the last few years, and it is still efforts that my
colleagues at the table and I still push for. But it is
something that, absolutely, if there is a way that a
servicemember can translate their skills to a job set and then
find a job, that is something we absolutely support.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. I have about 40 seconds. Anybody else want
to comment on that?
Mr. Gonzalez. Ma'am, I will make even a lot easier. SAAs,
again, approve the program itself. Now, if you want to take it
one step further, the question now becomes--and this is a
question that might be for this committee, but also for the
Education and Workforce Committee--because the institution
bodies themselves are accredited by a totally different
accreditation body, that if you actually get some type of
credential irrespective of the credential from an institution
of higher learning and yet you cannot sit for a license at a
state board, then that is greater than just an SAA issue. It is
an actual accreditation and SAAs of that respective state,
ma'am.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Ms. Kirkpatrick.
We thank the first panel for your testimony. You are now
excused.
Mr. Flores. And I would invite the second panel to the
table. On our second panel, we welcome back both Mr. Curtis L.
Coy, deputy under secretary for economic opportunity at the
Department of Veterans Affairs. And he is accompanied by Major
General Robert Worley, director of the Education Service at the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
I thank both of you for your prior service, and it is nice
to have you back in front of this committee.
And we also have Dr. Joseph Wescott, president of the
National Association of State Approving Agencies, who has been
a large subject of the testimony of today's hearing.
We thank you for your prior service as well, Dr. Wescott,
and it is great to have you here.
Mr. Coy, as soon as you get situated, we will recognize you
for 5 minutes for your testimony. Sorry to rush you guys.
STATEMENTS OF MR. CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJOR GENERAL
ROBERT M. WORLEY II, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY
Mr. Coy. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Takano, and other members of the subcommittee. I
certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs' education
benefit program and the role of state approving agencies.
Accompanying me this morning, as you indicated, is Rob Worley,
our director of education service at VA.
I would like to start by acknowledging and thanking NASAA
for its leadership and all SAAs for their continuing commitment
to work with their respective educational institutions and VA
to ensure the accurate and timely delivery of high-quality
educational benefits to our veterans.
I would specifically like to thank Dr. Joe Wescott,
president of NASAA, for his exceptional leadership. The last
several years have been a collaborative journey for his with
our SAA partners. I would also like to thank and acknowledge
the other members and organizations testifying here today. I
respect and admire their passion and advocacy of veterans.
As you know, VA administers educational benefits to
eligible veterans and dependents, while SAAs work to ensure the
quality of educational and vocational programs. SAAs are
charged with approving courses, including apprenticeship
programs, and ensure that education and training programs meet
approval requirements through a variety of approval activities.
With the implementation of Public Law 111-377, VA was given
the authority to use the services of the SAAs to assist VA in
conducting compliance surveys. That has been an incredibly
value-added partnership. SAAs also conduct outreach to veterans
and other eligible persons about available education and
training benefits. We believe SAAs add significant value to the
VA's educational benefit programs.
As I mentioned, in the past 2 or 3 years VA and our SAA
partners have worked collaboratively. Two quick examples. This
past September, VA and NASAA conducted a joint summer training
conference to provide essential training to both NASAA and VA
compliance and liaison staff. One primary goal of the training
was to ensure a comprehensive and consistent understanding of
all aspects of compliance surveys. Another example, VA and
NASAA recently chartered a Joint Advisory Committee to serve as
a standing forum for resolution of issues related to the mutual
responsibilities of SAAs.
Today, we are here to talk about legislative proposals
submitted to the committee by NASAA in three broad areas:
compliance reviews, flight training programs, and program
approval.
With respect to changing the current statutory requirements
for conducting compliance surveys, VA believes it may be
necessary to review the frequency and types of schools at which
compliance surveys are conducted. Currently, there are about
16,000 approved domestic and international institutions of
higher learning and noncollege degree institutions. Of the
16,000, 11,260 were active institutions in calendar year 2013.
During the last 2 fiscal years, VA and SAAs have completed over
10,000 compliance surveys. This work was split roughly in half
between VA and SAAs.
VA believes that it would be valuable to review the
criteria for compliance survey requirements, and we believe
there should be enough flexibility to allow for the time and
resources to conduct scheduled surveys, as well as unscheduled
surveys and risk-based surveys. We look forward to working with
NASAA and the committee on this.
NASAA also has put forward proposed changes to the flight
school aspect of the GI Bill. Like NASAA, VA is concerned about
high tuition fee payments for enrollment in degree programs
involving flight schools. VA wants to ensure that we are good
stewards of the taxpayer money and we are open to discussing
possible changes in how benefits are paid.
There has been a significant increase in flight training
centers, specifically those that offer helicopter training,
which have contracted with public IHLs to offer flight-related
degrees. Sometimes these programs charge higher prices than
those that would have been charged if the student had chosen to
attend a vocational flight program, which is currently capped
at about $11,000. We are, also, concerned about the growing
number of VA beneficiaries that are taking flight school
courses as an elective.
Finally, the NASAA proposal would clarify and codify state
approval authority and oversight to all non-Federal facilities.
VA is not opposed to this proposal and to clarify SAA approval
authorities within the context of the other key functions SAAs
perform, including compliance, training, outreach, and
technical assistance. However, the VA believes that the
Secretary should maintain the approval-related authorities
currently reflected in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy appears in the Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coy.
Dr. Wescott, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. WESCOTT
Dr. Wescott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies to discuss the role of state approving agencies in
ensuring quality education. I am accompanied by our legislative
director, Tim Freeman.
Soon after the GI Bill became law, Congress, recognizing
that it was the responsibility of the States within our Federal
system of government to oversee the education of their
citizens, required that each State establish a state approving
agency. Thus evolved a truly cooperative Federal-State effort
that maintains the rights of the States while monitoring and
protecting a federally sponsored program administered under the
terms and conditions of Federal law.
And I would say that VA has strived, particularly under the
leadership of Deputy Under Secretary Curt Coy, to both support
and enhance that historic partnership. I sincerely thank him
for that commitment. And I thank my other partners here today
as well as who share both our passion and our purpose.
Today 55 SAAs in 49 States and Puerto Rico, composed of
nearly 175 professional and support personnel, are supervising
over 7,000 active facilities with approximately 100,000
programs. NASAA believes strongly that the primary
responsibility and focus of the SAAs is and should continue to
be to review, evaluate, and approve programs at schools and
training facilities utilizing State and Federal criteria and to
provide training and technical assistance to school officials.
For that reason, it is critically important, as Congress
intended, that each State have a state approving agency.
In 2011, with the implementation of Section 203 of Public
Law 111-377, we began assisting VA with their requirement to
perform compliance surveys at SAA-approved institutions. Over
the course of the next 3 years, SAAs conducted over 60 percent
of the compliance survey visits performed. Last year alone we
conducted 51 percent of those visits.
NASAA has submitted legislative proposals to the committee
which would serve to improve the service and protection
provided to our veterans while enhancing the administration of
the GI Bill. Our legislative proposals to the committee are in
the area of approval authority, payment for flight programs,
and compliance reviews.
NASAA seeks to clarify and codify state approval authority
and oversight over all non-Federal facilities.
Dr. Wescott. We wish to clarify the Federal code in regard
to the role of SAAs, by identifying SAAs as the primary entity
responsible for approval, suspension, and withdrawal. In
addition, since the passage of the Public Law 111-377, there
has been no statutory authority for the approval of accredited
NCD programs at public or private not-for-profit institutions,
a situation our recommendation would correct.
NASAA is seeking measures to improve cost control for
flight programs offered by colleges and universities. Some
public higher education institutions have instituted higher
costs for flight fees, and in some cases benefits have been
paid for aviation degree programs at public IHLs provided by a
third-party flight contractor with no approval issued by the
governing SAA. NASAA suggests limiting Chapter 33 payments for
flight programs and public institutions to the prevailing cap.
Finally, NASAA seeks appropriate changes to 38 U.S. 3693 to
improve the manner in which we and our VA partners perform
compliance surveys. We would like to see changes in the law to
allow VA, with the assistance of the SAAs, to respond quickly
to risks identified through the new complaint system. To
accomplish this, Mr. Chairman, our legislative proposal is to
amend the law to provide that the Secretary will conduct a
compliance survey at least once every 2 years at each facility
offering one or more approved programs with at least 20
veterans or eligible persons enrolled.
Mr. Chairman, NASAA remains strongly committed to working
closely with our VA partners, our VSO stakeholders, and school
officials to ensure that veterans have access to quality
educational programs delivered in an appropriate manner by
reputable providers. This concludes my statement and, I look
forward, Mr. Chairman, to answering any questions you or other
members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wescott appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Dr. Wescott, thank you for your testimony. And
also thank you for the work that you and your colleagues and
your affiliated organizations do to further veterans' education
in our country.
I am going to begin, I am going to recognize myself for 5
minutes for questioning. The first question is for you, Mr.
Coy. What is the Department's position on the flight school
changes that have been proposed by the SAAs?
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. There
are two or three comments with respect to flight schools. Right
now flight schools, as we break it down, are basically in three
general areas.
The first is the vocational flight school, and as I
mentioned, that is currently capped at $11,500 and a little bit
more. And we believe that is fine as is to some degree.
The second is flight school programs at institutions of
higher learning that for the most part have been contracted
out. And we have seen an alarming increase in the dollars that
are spent on that.
And then finally, there are flight course electives that
veterans are taking, that again is somewhat alarming in that.
Capping them at the current national maximum of $20,235.02
probably makes good sense in terms of being able to manage
those programs and looking at this from a standpoint of being
good stewards of the taxpayer money.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you. Another question, Mr. Coy.
What is the Department's position on the legislative changes
proposed by the SAAs regarding the number of compliance surveys
completed over the course of a year?
Mr. Coy. Another great question, sir. And I would suggest
that as we stand back and look at compliance surveys as a
whole, currently, as you know, it is all schools over 300
students. I have some numbers here that are somewhat
interesting.
Right now, as I think I mentioned, there are about 11,260
schools that were active schools in 2013. Interestingly, of
those 11,260 schools, 15 percent of them have one veteran
attending. And then if you look overall, the number of schools
that have 20 or more attending is 5,100 schools. So you see we
would essentially capture well over 50 percent of those active
schools should we drop that down to 20. We have also heard
testimony today that there are some schools that don't
necessarily are required to have compliance surveys because
they drop below that 300 cap.
So doing it for 20 schools or more probably is an
appropriate number every 2 years, because what we think would
be valued is, as we stand back and look at our compliance
survey process in the past few years, as I mentioned, we have
done 10,000 over the last 2 years or 15,000 over the last 3
years.
And so if we stand back and look at being able to do in
round numbers 5,000 surveys a year, and being able to schedule
a certain amount of surveys so the schools over 20 would be in
round numbers about 2,500 schools or so every 2 years, that
allows us some flexibility to do unscheduled visits, which we
want to increase, but as well do risk-based reviews of schools
based upon whether they are complaints from our complaint
system or getting them from other quarters. So the over 20
probably provides enough flexibility.
Mr. Flores. The next question is for both of you, Dr.
Wescott and Mr. Coy. In Mr. Gallucci's testimony and in his
written statement he alerted the subcommittee to the fact that
many college prep courses--or actually I would say post-
undergrad courses--offered at institutions of higher learning
are not approved for use under the GI Bill. Can you tell me, A,
is the assertion correct? And B, if it is, do you see this as a
problem, and what steps can the VA and the SAAs take to address
this issue?
Mr. Wescott. Mr. Chairman, certainly there is regulatory
ability to approve those courses. There are certain limitations
about what courses can be approved. For instance, they must be
offered by an IHL.
So normally what happens in the approval process, if a
student takes a course, wants reimbursement, he will go to that
institution and then that institution would come to the SAA.
Certainly we can work within our States to promote more
knowledge about these courses and can work with IHLs to see
what they are offering so that we can have more of those
courses approved. But it is somewhat driven by the needs of the
veterans themselves.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Coy, anything to add?
Mr. Coy. I would agree with Dr. Wescott. I would add one or
two other pieces. There is some flexibility to provide for some
of those thing like LSAT prep courses, and SAT prep courses and
that sort of thing for the GI Bill.
I think one of the challenges that we see more anecdotally
or not is remedial course for veterans coming onto campus. And
so when they first get to campus, they may require, for
example, a no-credit course, but it is English 101 revised or
revisited, in other words, or Math 101, that would help a
veteran get reacquainted to the academic environment.
Generally, those courses are not credit courses. So those
are the kinds of things that I think Ryan was also alluding to
in his oral testimony.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coy.
And I apologize to the ranking member for overrunning my
time, and so I will give you 7 minutes for questions.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, that was a very important
dialogue you were having toward the end and I don't begrudge
you in the least.
Dr. Wescott, can you please explain to me some of the
criteria SAAs use to evaluate programs? What I am getting at
is, do you see noticeable differences between for-profit and
nonprofit or public schools? Do you think the criteria are
stringent enough for the evaluation?
Dr. Wescott. Well, certainly that would be part of a
conversation we would love to have with the committee, is how
we might change criteria. SAAs are devoted to looking at the
quality of programming, and of course that is what we would do
as educators.
At present, we do have criteria that allows us look at
things like standards of progress, instructor qualification,
the curriculum itself. It is very important to us that
institutions grant prior credit if that credit has been earned
at other places. We look at the ability to administer the
program. And with recent changes by the Congress, we also are
starting to look at inducements and making sure that
institutions are not offering those.
We believe in one standard. We believe that standard should
be the same for both the profit and the nonprofit. We believe
it should be a high standard. And certainly I think we have
evolved to the point that we do need to have a look at the
present criteria and possibly strengthen them.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Coy, that conversation you had with the
chairman toward the end of his line of questioning, I know from
my years on community college boards that up to 80 percent of
the students coming to California's community colleges were not
college ready. Can you give me an idea of how many of our
veterans who are seeking a return to college face remediation
issues? Do you have a number on that?
Mr. Coy. The short answer is, no, sir, I do not have an
answer on how many require that sort of remedial training. And
part of the reason that we don't have that kind of information
is, is that we, number one, have not collected that
information.
But number two is, as I am often fond of saying, that
veterans are sort of like fingerprints and each one is a little
bit different. And some may need remedial courses in English,
and some may need remedial courses in math, and some may need
remedial courses on study habits, and the list goes on and on
and on.
So, no, sir, I don't have a number or percentage, but what
we do know, I go out and talk at schools and universities all
the time, and it is something that is going on.
I would also like to suggest that SVA has done something
that is really unique, Student Veterans of America, and they
are developing a mentoring program and a tutoring-type program.
We also have tutoring available to certain aspects of veterans.
Mr. Takano. I want to get on to my next question, but I
would like to pursue this issue with you further.
Mr. Coy, the issues that we have been discussing today are
so important because they help us understand what we all need
to do to ensure that veterans' education benefits aren't being
exploited, and that veterans are receiving the education they
need and deserve. In light of that, I would like to raise
another issue. Today the Center for Investigative Reporting
published a story about the VA's response to student veterans
complaints against colleges.
The story is going to show that the VA investigated only
324 of the roughly 2,400 complaints that veterans have filed
against colleges for alleged deceptive marketing, financial
fraud, or poor quality education. Can you tell me why so few
complaints have been investigated and what the VA plans to do
to address the remaining complaints?
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir, absolutely. I did read the article this
morning as well, and we have had several conversations with the
author of that particular article. I will just stand back and
take a look at the complaint system or feedback tool that we
have. It was born out of the President's Principles of
Excellence and that executive order. We created this system and
it came online about 10 months ago.
Since it has come online, there have been over 33,000 views
of the tool and 2,298 complaints that have been submitted. We
have about 48 percent of them that are pending. In other words,
we haven't sent them out. There are about 1,000 active
complaints or less than half.
And what we do with these complaints is, is when we get
them and we validate them in terms of an applicable complaint
with respect to the Principles of Excellence, because about, I
want to say 36 percent, have nothing do with the Principles of
Excellence. They are complaints ranging from I don't like my
professor to any number of sort of non-POE-type complaints.
We take these complaints, we send them to the school, ask
for their response. They have 60 days. After 60 days, if we
don't respond, we generally try and give them another 30 days.
So we have completed 366 of them. As a result of these
complaints, we have done 42 risk-based compliance reviews. They
have resulted in four suspensions and one withdrawal.
And so we think this feedback tool is incredibly valuable
in terms of transparency for veterans that are looking at these
various schools, and we think it is so powerful that just last
week we released an update to our comparison tool that includes
that school's complaints that have been submitted through the
system.
The only other piece I would suggest in this is, is each
one of these complaints is handled manually. So in other words,
there is not a neat digital system that ships them from here to
there. We take each one, we read each one. Where it is
appropriate, we send them out to the school, we get responses.
Schools have been incredibly responsive.
Interestingly, I brought this, just as an example. This is
a 30-page response to one of the complaints, of which 5 pages
of it is pure verbiage talking about that particular complaint.
So each one of these is taken very, very seriously. And part of
the reason for that is, is, A, it is manual, and, B, each one
is taken a look at individually.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, my time is up and I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Coy, we will probably want to come back and revisit
that. As you know, Chairman Miller of the entire VA Committee
has issued a request to the agency to respond to some of these
issues. So probably revisit this sometime next year.
Dr. Wenstrup, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Wenstrup. I have no questions.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Ms. Kirkpatrick, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Dr. Wescott, I have a question about the
Joint Advisory Committee. How often does it meet?
Mr. Wescott. Well, actually, we just chartered that in
September and the plan is to have our first meeting in January.
There will be six members, six from the state approving
agencies, six from the VA. Myself and the education service
director will chair that group. Our expectation is probably
that it would meet on a monthly basis or a bimonthly basis and
that we would deal with issues that would impact both of our
institutions, and particularly those where we are looking at
changing policies or requirements vis-a-vis education
programming.
So we are excited about that. We think it is yet another
avenue where we can work on these problems together. And we
think it is also important that we work not only with the VA,
but we are also excited about working with accreditors, those
channels of communication as well, as have been mandated by
law. We look forward to doing that as well.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. The last panel suggested that every
approved program be audited so we do away with having 300
recipients of the GI Bill enrolled. Basically, if the program
has one, they would be reviewed every 3 years. What do you
think about that idea?
Mr. Wescott. Well, I certainly am in agreement with our
proposal that we would be looking at schools who have at least
20 veterans, and let me add to that, every 2 years. And then we
suggest no school should go without some kind of visit every
three years. We believe that certainly we can, by visiting
those schools, SAAs can help our partners with compliance
surveys. But we also think that there is a great deal of value
in us making training and technical assistance visits, that we
are able to help schools that we have become aware of that are
struggling, maybe they have a new SCO that has questions. So
when there is an opportunity, we would like to visit those
institutions as well.
But you are right, we do need to adjust away from the 300-
plus. Many of those institutions having 300 or more veterans
enrolled are adequately staffed, they are adequately trained,
and possibly don't even have as much turnover as some of the
other institutions that we need to go and visit.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Well, according to Mr. Coy's testimony, it
is over 50 percent of the programs that are deemed approved
fall within that category. So it seems like a lot are falling
through the cracks.
Mr. Coy, can you describe for me how a program becomes
deemed approved? What is the criteria for that?
Mr. Coy. Well, according to 111-377, if you are an
accredited institution of higher learning and a degree-granting
institution, you could be considered deemed approved. What the
SAAs do when they look at each of those schools or
apprenticeship programs is going in--and I have a list of
things, if you will give me a second I can talk through some of
the things that our SAAs do. They go out and----
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Excuse the interruption, but could you
focus on the for-profit schools that don't fall into that
category of a higher education institution? How do you apply
your criteria to get those programs deemed approved?
Mr. Coy. I will defer to my colleague Dr. Wescott. He is
probably more of an expert in terms of the exact things that
they go in and do. I can certainly talk generally, but I think
you would prefer something more specific.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Okay. Dr. Wescott.
Mr. Wescott. Certainly, I would be delighted to respond to
that, ma'am. Deemed-approved degree programs are at public and
not-for-profit private institutions. So for-profit institution
degree programs are not deemed approved. So we still look at
those, as well as the NCD programs.
At the deemed-approved institutions, we look at primarily
the noncollege degree programs there, and that is where our
legislation seeks to correct the deficiency in the present code
to give us the criteria to do that. So we are still looking
closely at the for-profits.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Okay.
Mr. Coy, you described the complaint system and how that is
done manually. Do you have plans to digitalize that and is it
possible for the veterans to monitor the progress of their
case?
And I only have about 4 minutes, can I allow the witness to
at least answer that question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coy. It is a great question, Congresswoman, and the
short answer is, is yes, we are looking at doing more
automation. We wanted to get this tool on the street as quickly
as possible. So the front end is automated, the back end is
not. We are working with our IT folks to automate that as much
as we can.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Thank you, Mr. Coy, Major General Worley, and Dr. Wescott.
You are now excused.
I want to thank everyone for your attendance today and the
frank discussion on the state approving agencies. And I
appreciate, Dr. Wescott, the recommendations of your group and
I think they are very helpful.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
any extraneous material in the record of today's hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Flores. If there is nothing further, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to present the VFW's thoughts on the role that
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) can play in ensuring quality in
education for today's student veterans. As advocates for the success of
student veterans in higher education, the VFW has long been concerned
about the role the SAAs can play as the front-line quality assurance
resource for GI Bill programs. This committee, along with partners in
the veterans' advocacy community, played a major role in commissioning
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and the VFW has always been willing to serve as
an advisor on ways to ensure success for our student veterans in higher
education.
Together we have made significant progress over the years, not just
by commissioning landmark benefit programs, but also by ensuring
resources are in place to help college-bound veterans make informed
educational choices; ensuring veterans have access to quality, unbiased
pre-enrollment counseling options; affording veterans recourse should
they become victims of fraud, waste, and abuse; and most recently,
ensuring that no public institution of higher learning can hold a
veterans' military service against them when determining eligibility
for in-state tuition. This Subcommittee and my fellow panelists should
be proud of these recent accomplishments, but we must also acknowledge
that we are not done yet.
The SAAs were designed under the original Veterans Readjustment Act
of 1944 to serve as each state's steward of quality educational
programs for veterans. The VFW credits both the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) and the SAAs with fostering a boom in higher education for
America's middle class, ultimately leading to further investment in
civilian higher education opportunities. With this in mind, the VFW
believes it is important that we consistently revisit the SAAs' role in
providing for the quality education our veterans have earned, like we
are doing today.
However, I must also remind the Subcommittee that today's hearing,
and any resultant legislative changes, should only serve as a starting
point for the broader discussion on the future role of SAAs. Some in
today's higher education space insist that SAAs only duplicate the
modern role of independent accreditors and the Department of Education.
The VFW refutes this notion, and must remind the Subcommittee that the
SAAs' scope of responsibilities is well beyond the kinds of programs
approved for participation in the Department of Education. SAAs also
serve as the gatekeepers of quality for non-degree programs eligible
for GI Bill participation, as well as VA On-the-Job Training and
Apprenticeship programs - two GI Bill programs that are currently
underutilized, but can serve as gateways to quality careers for
veterans who do not want to pursue a traditional college education.
The VFW also understands that it is responsible governance to
periodically revisit oversight mechanisms and at times change roles and
responsibilities to suit the needs of an ever-changing veterans'
community, which is why we encourage this committee to host future
hearings to candidly discuss new and innovative ways to leverage a
strong network of SAAs to foster quality outcomes for student veterans.
The VFW proudly serves as a constructive partner with the National
Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) as well as VA in
ensuring student veterans have access to quality educational and
vocational training programs. With this in mind, much of our testimony
will focus on NASAA's recommendations to the Subcommittee on ways to
improve the effectiveness of today's SAAs.
Statutory Authority on Non-College Degree Program Approval
For the past few years, NASAA has expressed frustration at the
inability for SAAs to inspect and approve non-college degree (NCD)
programs at not-for-profit institutions of higher learning which became
``deemed approved'' through the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-377). Through P.L. 111-
377, all programs at not-for-profit schools accredited by a Department
of Education-recognized accreditor were to be ``deemed approved'' for
GI Bill purposes. However, what the SAAs found in subsequent years was
that not-for-profit schools started to develop NCD programs of
questionable value. When SAAs started to question the marketplace
validity of these programs, SAAs were denied access to inspect them. In
the subsequent years, NASAA caught the attention of VA's Office of
Economic Opportunity, which issued guidance allowing the SAAs to once
again inspect NCD programs.
However, SAAs still lack the statutory authority to properly
approve NCD programs at non-profit schools--meaning some programs
continue to operate under the ``deemed approved'' umbrella, unless SAAs
learn about them and inspect them for validity. The VFW supports
extending the statutory authority to the SAAs to inspect these kinds of
programs to validate their quality.
NASAA also requested that the SAAs once again retain primary
approval authority for GI Bill programs--another change ushered in
through P.L. 111-377, through which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
was also given the authority to approve or disapprove programs. One
goal of this initiative is to ensure that every state fully staffs its
SAA, as four currently have eliminated their SAA position. While the
VFW understands the intent of this provision, we believe that as the
fiduciary of the benefit, VA must retain some authority over the
approval and disapproval of programs.
Statutory Authority on Flight Program Approval at Public Institutions
NASAA also has reported that public institutions of higher learning
have started to commission flight training programs or free electives
specifically targeting veterans for enrollment. According to the SAAs,
the reason schools are adding these programs is because of the uncapped
reimbursement offered by VA for flight programs at public institutions
through the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA has corroborated this report,
acknowledging that several flight programs at public intuitions have
been suspended for GI Bill eligibility for violating the long-standing
85/15 headcount rule, through which no more than 85 percent of students
enrolled in an academic program can be receiving VA education benefits.
In years past, the VFW believed that VA's 85/15 rule had become
obsolete, since veterans comprised such a small cohort in the higher
education population. We were surprised to learn that programs--
particularly programs at public institutions--could violate this
seemingly irrelevant rule by recruiting veterans for newly-commissioned
flight programs.
However, the fact that these programs have sprouted up in the few
years since the Post-9/11 GI Bill was signed into law are a clear
indication that SAAs must have greater authority to inspect and approve
flight programs at public institutions. Moreover, the VFW agrees with
NASAA's recommendation to establish a tuition and fees cap for flight
programs commensurate with the cap for private institutions of higher
learning already established for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
These new criteria are not an indictment of the quality of flight
programs at public institutions, but instead are a quality control
measure to ensure that the benefit is administered in a fair and
equitable way for veterans who choose to enroll.
Consistency and Flexibility for Compliance Surveys
Finally, NASAA has also expressed serious concerns over current
statutory requirements on how VA and the SAAs must conduct compliance
surveys every year. Under current law, VA must conduct compliance
surveys annually on all facilities reporting at least 300 enrolled GI
Bill recipients. The VFW agrees with NASAA's assertion that this is an
impossible mission, and one that neglects institutions that may face
significant compliance issues.
The current statutory requirement can mean that some schools will
go years without a compliance survey, as VA and the SAAs struggle to
satisfy the requirement to survey schools with large veteran
populations. Such a requirement can hinder both VA's and the SAAs'
response to at-risk programs that may enroll far fewer veterans, while
wasting significant time and resources inspecting perennial top
performers who happen to have large student veteran populations.
The VFW agrees with NASAA that the statutory requirements should
change to ensure that VA can conduct compliance surveys on all
institutions at least once every three years. VA and the SAAs should
also be given flexibility in determining priorities in conducting
annual compliance surveys.
In the past, this kind of collaboration may have been a difficult
task, but thanks to the GI Bill Complaint System commissioned by this
Committee through the Improving Transparency in Education for Veterans
Act of 2012, the VFW is confident that VA and the SAAs now have access
to a clearinghouse of information through which they can identify
trends that would lead to risk-based program reviews.
Approval of Preparatory Courses
In the past year, the VFW has learned that no preparatory courses
offered by institutions of higher learning have been approved for use
by GI Bill beneficiaries for chapters 33, 30, 1606, 1607 and 35. The
ability to use these benefits to prepare veterans for complex entrance
exams, like the LSAT, GMAT or GRE, is a major selling point for
veterans, and a benefit readily discussed on VA's GI Bill FAQ website.
Unfortunately, we have found that some college administrators, VA
employees and SAA officials are unaware that the GI Bill will pay for
preparatory courses and, therefore, are denying veterans the ability to
use their benefits for such programs. In fact, after shopping around,
the VFW failed to identify a single preparatory course through which a
veteran could use his or her benefits.
In discussions with VA and NASAA on the ability to approve
preparatory courses, both VA and the SAAs have admitted that the law is
unclear about how these programs are to be treated for GI Bill
approval. The VFW seeks clarification on how VA should approve
preparatory courses offered by institutions of higher learning to
ensure that veterans can start taking advantage of this opportunity.
The VFW firmly believes that the SAAs remain a valuable partner in
ensuring quality for veterans in higher education. We agree with many
of NASAA's recommendations to change the current framework under which
the SAAs operate to ensure they can continue serving in this role.
However, we also reiterate our call for periodic discussions on how to
better leverage the SAAs and their resources to ensure veteran success
in higher education.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, this concludes my testimony
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has
not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2013, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Steve Gonzalez
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and the 2.4
million members of The American Legion, we thank you and your
colleagues for the work you do in support of our service members and
veterans as well as their families. The hard work of this Subcommittee
in creating significant legislation has left a positive impact on our
military and veterans' community.
We thank you especially for holding this hearing that aims to
examine the current role of State Approving Agencies (SAAs) in ensuring
that veterans have access to quality educational and job training
programs. With the constantly shifting economic and social landscape
faced by veterans, it is important to continually re-evaluate and--if
needed--revise the role of these SAAs in order to protect veterans and
taxpayers.
The American Legion is proud to work with the National Association
of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) in order to provide veterans with
the best educational and training opportunities possible.
Background
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) are responsible for approving and
supervising programs of education for the training of veterans,
eligible dependents, and eligible members of the National Guard and the
Reserves. SAAs grew out of the original GI Bill of Rights that became
law in 1944. Though SAAs have their foundation in Federal law, SAAs
operate as part of state governments. SAAs approve programs leading to
vocational, educational or professional objectives. These include
vocational certificates, high school diplomas, GEDs, degrees,
apprenticeships, on-the-job training, flight training, correspondence
training and programs leading to required certification to practice in
a profession.
In December 2010, Congress passed the Post 9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-377), which
was signed into law in January 2011. That bill contained language that
impacted the role of the State Approving Agencies in terms of program
approval authority. Due to the expansion of GI Bill-eligible programs
to include many for-profit vocational training programs, non-registered
apprenticeships, and on the job training establishments, the law
``deemed approved'' many programs that were otherwise accredited or
approved by other institutions such as Department of Education-
recognized accrediting bodies. This was done in order to relieve some
of the work load of the SAAs, and to avoid redundancy between the work
done by SAAs and other accrediting bodies. This had the effect of
shifting the role of the SAAs from being the primary entity responsible
for approving all GI Bill eligible programs to examining only those
that were not deemed approved for the purposes of the legislation (viz.
programs at for-profit institutions, non-registered apprenticeships, on
the jobs training establishments, non-accredited institutions, non-
public licensure/certification examinations, and new institutions).
Our Position
While The American Legion applauds the expansion of the GI Bill
applicability, we find it problematic that SAAs have been removed from
a large portion of the approval process. SAAs focus explicitly on the
GI Bill and serve to protect it, and, by extension, the veterans using
it. They ensure that programs meet certain eligibility criteria, in
order to see that the funds are not wasted, but are put to the best use
possible. Their unique focus on how GI Bill funds are spent makes their
mission distinct from all other oversight and approving bodies.
Furthermore, as federally authorized arms of their respective state
governments, SAAs are in a unique position to evaluate programs that
are offered in their state, given their proximity. This arrangement
also maintains the federalism required by the Constitution.
Therefore, The American Legion supports the SAAs, and believes that
they should have a role in reviewing, evaluating, and approving all
educational and training programs for GI Bill use.
While some may argue that the work that the SAAs do is redundant to
the work of accrediting bodies, The American Legion believes that SAAs
approval is, in fact, unique. This is because the charge of the SAAs is
to specifically focus on protecting GI Bill funds. While traditional
accreditation provided by Department of Education-recognized
accrediting bodies does a significant portion of work toward ensuring
quality programs, SAA approval should work in tandem with that
accreditation, rather than the stark division that is represented in
the current statute.
However, under P.L. 111-377, SAAs lack the statutory authority to
inspect many questionable programs that have sprung up since the
passage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill at not-for-profit institutions. Given
that the original mandate of the SAAs was to protect GI Bill funds from
being squandered in dubious programs, it seems reasonable that SAAs
should be allowed to inspect all suspicious programs, even if they are
housed in not-for-profit institutions.
As such, The American Legion supports the portion of the
legislative proposal submitted by NASAA that would statutorily make
SAAs the primary approving body for all programs approved for GI Bill
use. Programs may still be deemed approved, but at the discretion of
the SAAs, not the VA secretary.
The American Legion agrees with the NASAA recommendations regarding
changes to flight training. That not for profit institutions would take
advantage of the GI Bill by charging exorbitant tuition and fees for
this training is disheartening. Fixing this loophole helps to protect
the GI Bill by ensuring that its costs are kept low, while still
allowing beneficiaries to pursue such training, if required or so
desired. Furthermore, in cases where the institution contracts with a
third party to provide the training, The American Legion believes that
the SAAs should have approval authority.
Additionally, The American Legion supports the proposed shift in
the statutory requirement for SAA compliance surveys. As NASAA has
indicated, the current mandate (annual surveys for every institution
offering anything other than non-standard degrees, and any institution
that enrolls more than three hundred GI Bill beneficiaries is
needlessly burdensome, and is, frankly impossible given the limited
resources available.
In light of this, The American Legion believes that their funding
should be increased to ensure that they are able to adequately perform
their crucial role. Even if SAAs compliance survey requirement is
reduced, an increased role as primary approving body seems likely to
require more resources.
Conclusion
The American Legion supports SAAs, and recognizes the critical role
they play in ensuring quality programs for veterans using their GI Bill
benefit. This hearing should serve as a starting point for an ongoing
conversation regarding the role that SAAs currently play in quality
assurance.
How SAA approvals interact with accreditation remains somewhat
unclear. This legislation would make strides toward clarifying and
codifying the terms of that interaction. That said, The American Legion
believes that more insight into how the process works is needed in
order to ensure that veterans receive the highest quality education and
training, while preventing redundancy and wasting resources.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, we thank the subcommittee
for looking into this issue that is crucial to veterans and look
forward to your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Wescott
Introduction
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving Agencies
(NASAA) and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on ``The
Role of the State Approving Agencies in Ensuring Quality Education
Programs for Veterans''. I am accompanied today by Timothy Freeman,
NASAA Legislative Director, We also will provide some additional
comments that may be helpful to the Committee as it addresses concerns
about maintaining the effectiveness and integrity of the administration
of educational assistance programs administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs under Title 38, U.S.C., particularly in regard to
safeguarding educational quality.
Role of the State Approving Agencies: Past and Present
State Approving Agencies were established by Congress with the
passage of the Veteran's Readjustment Act of 1944, or the GI Bill of
Rights, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. That
legislation changed forever the face of higher education in the United
States and much has been written on the social, economic and cultural
return on that investment.
Congress, recognizing that it was the responsibility of the states
within our federal system of government to oversee the education of its
citizens, required that each state establish a ``State Approving
Agency'' and the governor of each state designated a state bureau or
department as the SAA. The SAA was to be supported by reimbursement of
its expenses by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Thus
evolved a truly cooperative federal-state effort that maintains the
rights of the states while monitoring and protecting a federally-
sponsored program administered under the terms and conditions of
federal law. And I would say that the present leadership of the VA has
strived, particularly in the person of the Deputy Undersecretary and
the Education Service Director, to both support and enhance that
historic partnership.
From a role of simply advising VA as to which educational and
training programs were state-approved, State Approving Agencies evolved
to become the primary source of assuring institutional accountability.
With specialized authorization under the Code of Federal Regulations
and state statues, they exercise the state's authority to approve,
disapprove and monitor education and training programs. SAAs also
assist the states and VA with exposing fraudulent and criminal activity
involving the payment of veteran's benefits.
In 1948, SAA representatives met to form a professional
organization to promote high professional standards, create a forum for
the exchange best practices, and to promote uniformity of purpose and
practice. For almost seventy years now, NASAA has worked with our VA
partners, the VSOs, and all agencies to ensure that the greatest
numbers of quality programs are available to those eligible for
education and training programs. We do this through our primary mission
of program approval and out related efforts; compliance, training,
liaison and outreach. We would like to briefly discuss these in turn.
Practice and Partnership
Today, fifty-five SAAs in 49 states (some states have two) and the
territory of Puerto Rico, composed of around 175 professional and
support personnel, are supervising over 7,000 active facilities with
approximately 100,000 programs (includes those considered ``deemed
approved''). The Subcommittee is no stranger to our fundamental role as
it is the same today as when we were created by Congress. SAAs and
NASAA work in collaboration with the VA and our other partners to
promote and safeguard quality education and training programs for
veterans and other eligible persons AND assist VA in preventing fraud,
waste and abuse in the administration of the GI Bill. NASAA believes
that the primary responsibility and focus of the SAAs is, and should
continue to be, to review, evaluate, and approve programs at schools
and training facilities, utilizing state and federal criteria. For that
reason alone, it is important, as Congress intended, that each state
have an SAA. Last year alone, SAAs across our nation approved over
39,000 education and training programs at universities, colleges,
training institutions, flight schools, and correspondence schools. We
also approved around 1000 licensing and certification exams providing
for reimbursement of exam fees. We do this through an approval process
that allows us to carefully evaluate many factors including curriculum,
instructors, policies, facilities, equipment and advertising. After a
careful review of the completed application, we schedule an inspection
visit to the facility to ensure that the institution understands
requirements and has the capability to oversee and administer the
program. If we find that they do, we provide training on the approval
process and our continuing expectations. And we continue to review the
approvals on a recurring basis as schools add or change programs and
policies. Also as a part of this approval process, where appropriate,
we ensure that schools are in compliance with Public Law 112-249 and
are not providing any ``commission, bonus, or other incentive payment
based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or
financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any student
recruiting or admission activities.'' And for schools who are
signatories of the ``Principles of Excellence (POE),'' we provide
training and information to them as well.
In 2011, with the implementation of Section 203 of Public Law 111-
377, the Post-911 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, we
began assisting VA with their requirement to perform compliance surveys
at SAA-approved institutions. Over the course of the next three years,
FY 12 through14, SAAs conducted over sixty (60) percent of the
compliance survey visits performed throughout the nation. Last year
alone, we conducted 2,589 visits, or some fifty-one (51) percent of the
visits accomplished. During those visits we ensure that schools are
conducting the GI Bill educational program in compliance with state and
federal requirements, talk to veterans (if possible) and if
appropriate, review POE requirements with institutions. We are proud to
have worked with our partners at VA on the joint Compliance Survey
Redesign Work Group (CSRWG) to change for the better the way that
compliance surveys are conducted. We believe there is more work to be
done in that area and we look forward to addressing those needs (and
others) through the recently chartered Joint Advisory Forum (JAC), made
up of NASAA and VA leadership. And we are suggesting as a part of our
legislative proposal, a further refinement of the federal requirement
for compliance surveys.
We consider an important part of our mission to be the training and
professional development of our newly hired SAA personnel (and in
recent years our VA Educational Liaison Representatives (ELRs)). As
such, each year we offer our National Training Institute (NTI) at
conveniently located sites around the nation utilizing our National
Training Curriculum, which provides information on policies and
procedures relating to the SAA mission. Last month, we trained a total
of 54 students, 36 SAA personnel and 18 VA personnel, in Cincinnati,
Ohio and the previous year, 29 SAA professionals were trained in
Atlanta, GA. We consider equally important the opportunity to train
school certifying officials, and we work closely with our National
Association of Veteran's Program Administrators (NAVPA) partners to do
so on a national level. In our individual states we work with the ELRs
to provide training to SCOs at conferences and workshops each year.
SAAs also provide training to school officials during our official
visits (inspection and compliance) and when resources and time allow,
we schedule training and technical assistance visits to schools that
need additional training.
As State agencies working with a Federal program, SAAs are uniquely
situated to network with stakeholders in education and training to
coordinate the improved delivery of veterans' benefits.
State Approving Agencies work with others to exchange information,
facilitate the increased approval of programs and raise awareness of
the veteran, their educational needs and benefits. SAAs have forged
links with State Agencies such as Departments of Veterans Affairs,
Departments of Education, Higher Education Governing Boards,
Departments of Labor and other licensing boards. We meet with
representatives of accreditation associations, the National Guard and
the Reserve, apprenticeship councils, union boards, and veterans
service organizations. In the past, some SAAs have also participated on
accreditation visits. At a national level, contacts are made with the
Departments of Defense, Education, and Labor, as well as the Federal
Aviation Administration. State Approving Agency activities often
complement what is being done at the state level and since not all
states have program review offices, those SAAs become the de facto
review entity for the State.
Legislative Proposals
Given the evolution of the role of SAAs over the past decade, NASAA
has submitted legislative proposals to the committee which would serve
to improve the service and protection provided to our veterans while
enhancing the administration of the GI bill educational program. Our
legislative proposals to the Committee are in the area of approval
authority, payment for flight programs, and compliance reviews.
NASAA seeks to clarify and codify State approval authority and
oversight over all non-Federal facilities. We wish to clarify 3672 in
regards to the role of the SAAs by identifying SAAs as the primary
entity responsible for approval, suspension, and withdrawal. These
proposed changes would ensure that an actual process for approval,
suspension, and withdrawal will be adhered to (as opposed to our
current scenario under the present ``deemed approved'' idea). However,
we are not seeking to do away with the idea that accredited degree
programs at public and not for profit private institutions of higher
education (IHLs) may be ``deemed approved'' .Rather, we seek to
maintain the intent of the statute by adhering to an expeditious list
of approval criteria for those programs that have been reviewed and/or
endorsed by another appropriate entity. Furthermore, these changes
would lessen the opportunity for third-party contracted training
programs to be ``deemed approved'' with no review.
In addition, since the passage of the Post 9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 (111-377) in January of
2011, there has been no statutory authority for the approval of
accredited NCD programs at public or private not-for-profit
institutions. Our recommendations expand 3675 to cover all accredited
programs not already covered under 3672, while maintaining all previous
approval criteria for private-for-profit institutions.
NASAA is seeking measures to improve cost control for flight
programs offered by colleges and universities. These programs
frequently involve a contracted flight school. Some public higher
education institutions have instituted extreme costs for flight fees as
there are presently no caps in place for public IHLs. In some cases,
benefits have been paid for aviation degree programs at public IHLs
provided by a third-party flight contractor with no approval issued by
the governing SAA. This was exacerbated by the implementation of 3672.
And some students are taking flight classes as electives with no cost
cap for flight fees. In those cases, students could foreseeably take
flight classes as an ``undeclared'' student for up to two years. NASAA
suggests limiting Chapter 33 payments flight programs at public
institutions to prevailing cap, producing immediate cost-savings. There
would be no impact on the institutions ability to access Yellow Ribbon
funds. This would also eliminate the need to further investigate and
micro-manage flight programs areas including the number of flight hours
in addition to those minimally required or the types of aircraft used.
Finally, NASAA seeks appropriate changes to 38 US 3693 ( Compliance
Surveys) to maximize the opportunity to protect the G I Bill while
changing the manner in which we perform these surveys to reflect the
changes that have occurred in higher education and training in the past
three decades. The current statutory requirements for VA to conduct
Compliance Surveys represents an impossible mission, given present
resources. The statute requires an annual survey be conducted at each
and every facility that offers anything other than a standard college
degree as well as each and every institution enrolling at least 300 GI
Bill recipients. We would like to see changes in the law to allow for a
manageable mission in which VA, with the assistance of SAA partners,
can conduct compliance surveys on a regular scheduled basis at the
majority of approved institutions, while allowing for continued waiver
of those institutions with a demonstrated record of compliance. At the
same time, we feel strongly that no school should go without a visit of
some kind for longer than three years. Such compliance surveys should
be designed to ensure that the institution and approved courses are in
compliance with all applicable provisions of chapters 30 through 36 of
this title, but should also allow for limited program review,
interviews with veteran students and training for school officials.
Plus, the changes should allow for flexibility to adjust resources
towards specific high-risk educational institutions as specific needs
arise, allowing both VA and SAAs to be nimble and proactive in response
to risks identified through the new complaint system and will allow
SAAs to provide needed technical assistance and training visits to
schools. To accomplish this, Mr. Chairman, our legislative proposal is
to amend the law to provide that ``the Secretary will conduct a
compliance survey at least once every two years at each institution or
facility offering one or more courses approved for the enrollment of
eligible veterans or persons if at least 20 veterans or persons are
enrolled in such course or courses.''
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we remain strongly committed to working closely with
our VA partners, VSO stakeholders and educational institutions to
ensure that veterans have access to quality educational programs
delivered in an appropriate manner by reputable providers. For we all
share one purpose, a better future for our veterans and their
dependents. As I told another gathering of NASAA and VA personnel in
Washington over a year ago, while attempting to define who are the
SAAs, ``We are not mere clerks or bureaucrats. We are not just state
employees drawing a federally funded check. We are educators. We are
the engineers of excellence and the gatekeepers of quality. We will not
fail in our commitment to safeguard the public trust, to protect the GI
Bill and to defend the future of those who have so nobly defended us.''
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward
to answering your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]