[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND VR&E
NATIONAL COUNSELING CONTRACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 31, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-872 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
JEFF DENHAM, California JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana
Vacancy
Vacancy
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRUCE A. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JEFF DENHAM, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
March 31, 2011
Page
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling
Contract....................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman...................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman...................... 35
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Republican Member.................. 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Braley..................... 35
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Labor, John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Operations and Management, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service................................ 19
Prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam.......................... 47
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ruth A. Fanning, Director,
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration........................................ 20
Prepared statement of Ms. Fanning............................ 49
______
+Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National
Legislative Director........................................... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 40
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard C. Daley, Associate
Legislation
Director....................................................... 7
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley.............................. 45
VetsFirst, a Program of United Spinal Association, Heather L.
Ansley, Esq., MSW, Director of Veterans Policy................. 4
Prepared statement of Ms. Ansley............................. 36
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, statement.......................................... 53
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW. Director of Veterans Policy,
VetsFirst, a Program of United Spinal Association, letter
dated April 4, 2011, and response letter dated May 12, 2011 54
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans, letter dated April 4, 2011, and
DAV's responses............................................ 56
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Richard C. Daley, Associate Legislation Director, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, letter dated April 4, 2011, and
response letter dated May 13, 2011......................... 58
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Operations and Management, Veterans' Employment and
Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, letter dated
April 4, 2011, and response from Hon. Brian V. Kennedy,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.......................... 60
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Ruth A. Fanning, Director, Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated April 4, 2011,
and VA responses........................................... 62
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND VR&E
NATIONAL COUNSELING CONTRACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stutzman, Huelskamp, Braley, San-
chez, and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN
Mr. Stutzman. Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Welcome to everyone here and thank you for your time this
morning, and we are looking forward to the testimony and the
opportunity to work together and solve some of the issues that
are in front of us. So we are here today to review the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) budget for the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program, as well as the
Department's progress in implementing a new national contract
for counseling services. Let me begin by mentioning my concern
about the average 130 to 150 caseload carried by each
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment counselor. To put it
succinctly, I believe that is way too high and that is why I
support the Committee's Views and Estimates to the Budget
Committee suggesting a shift in funding to provide 50 more
counseling staff.
Clearly the Members of this Committee support the concept
of vocational rehabilitation as a means to return to the
workforce or be rehabilitated as part of the independent living
program. However, the Department has been somewhat cavalier in
implementing the provisions in Section 334 of Public Law 110-
389 that require the VA to conduct a study of at least 20
years' duration of three cohorts of VR&E participants. It is my
understanding that after completing an initial contract to
begin the study, the VA has not funded the effort. I find that
unsatisfactory in light of the generous budgets given to the VA
since passage of that law.
As a reminder, Congress included the study because little
is known about the outcomes of those participating in VR&E. For
example, the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA's) fiscal
year 2010 annual benefits report includes such relevant
information on VR&E participants as how many come from each
military service. But totally lacking is any information
describing why, of the nearly 70,000 applicants, 66,000 were
found to be eligible to VR&E and 41,000 were found to be
entitled to VR&E benefits in fiscal year 2010. There is no
information on how many of those 41,000 continued in the
program.
Further, there is no information on why thousands chose not
to participate. Without such data, how is Congress to determine
what changes to the law would increase, or would decrease the
dropout rate. There is an old saying in business: if you do not
measure it, you cannot manage it. And unfortunately, I believe
that the Department's reluctance to fully implement Public Law
110-389 does not improve the current shortage of data.
I would also note that the VBA report presents
contradictory data for VR&E. On several pages, VA indicates
that just over 117,000 veterans participate in the VR&E.
However, on page 70 of the report, VA counts 60,522 veterans
participating in a vocational training program. What are the
other 57,000 doing?
Finally there is an issue of the rate of rehabilitation.
The VA states that 10,038 veterans were rehabilitated in fiscal
year 2010. I believe that given the significant portion
attending long-term education and training, as well as the
nature of participants' disabilities, that is a reasonable
number. However, it is not 76 percent of those in the VR&E
program. I am told that this has been an issue for years. And a
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report states that
a proper accounting should produce a rate of about 18 percent.
So I would encourage the VA to rethink whatever accounting
formula there is that we are not forced to provide them with a
mandatory formula.
Again, I welcome all of our witnesses and I look forward to
the distinguished Ranking Member's remarks. So at this time I
will yield to him, Mr. Braley.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Stutzman appears on
p. 35.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY
Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing today and I share many of the concerns that you have
outlined. In past hearings, the Department of Veterans Affairs
Rehabilitation and Employment program has been referred to as
one of the VA's crown jewels because of the critical services
and rehabilitation programs it provides. This program has the
potential to become one of the best programs under the Veterans
Administration.
Over the years, the VR&E program has grown and has become
more comprehensive through legislation to better fulfill its
mission, such as what Public Law 111-377 did as it aligned some
of the education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Most
recently, it has been going through a transformation as it is
being branded as the VR&E VetSuccess program.
Today, we will hear about VR&E's successes and failures,
from the VetSuccess on Campus to the national acquisition
strategy. Since the VR&E provides assistance to service-
disabled veterans seeking to obtain employment and independent
living, it is crucial that we analyze their budget request for
fiscal year 2012 and evaluate their resources, operations, and
performance measures.
The VR&E program is unique in that it requires personal
interactions with the veteran to deliver services. The
vocational rehabilitation counselor plays a vital role in this
key interaction with veterans. In the initial meeting between
the VR&E counselor and the veteran, a determination is made as
to whether the veteran suffers from an employment handicap. And
I know from personal experiences this is an absolutely critical
threshold measure in helping people of any background to obtain
employment when they are coping with some sort of disability.
Eventually the counselor develops a personalized plan to
address the veteran's rehabilitation and employment needs. That
is why it is extremely important that we address the current
ratio of counselors to veterans to see if it is appropriate,
and the Chairman has already discussed that.
I would also like to discuss how often veterans complete
their rehabilitation plan, as well as learning what may have
deterred some veterans from completing the rehabilitation plan.
I also have concerns over current VR&E data gathering
methodology. In fiscal year 2009, there were 110,750
participants with 11,022 rehabilitated. In fiscal year 2010,
there were 117,130 participants with 10,038 rehabilitated. What
alarms me is that even while the number of participants has
increased the number of rehabilitated veterans has decreased. I
also question whether the number of participants in the program
is misleading due to VA's definition of a participant.
Currently, any veteran that has applied to the program but has
never actually realized a rehabilitation plan is considered a
participant. For example, if after submitting an application
the veteran decides this program is not suitable for them, the
application is still included in the participation rate. In
fiscal year 2010, the number of actual participants in some
type of training program under VR&E was 60,522. The data
gathering method is inaccurate and that bothers me because
these statistics are an essential tool to measuring the
effectiveness of this program. And Director Fanning, I hope
that you will address this concern for us today.
The other initiative that I look forward to learning more
about is VR&E's national acquisition contract and how
successfully VA will work with contractors to avoid the same
mistakes from nearly 2 years ago. Providing the vocational
rehabilitation services a veteran needs can be a challenging
issue, and avoiding problems with contractors who are unable to
meet contract services can prevent veterans from achieving
their rehabilitation plan.
We have noticed that work at VR&E has been increasing. I
hope that the Veterans Administration can reassure us today
that their fiscal year 2012 budget request will support the
15.5 percent increase in the VR&E workload.
Again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on p.
35.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Mr. Denham had
submitted opening remarks. If there is no objection we can just
submit those for the record. Okay, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Denham appears on
p. 53.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. And then also any other
Members would like to make any opening remarks? Okay, thank
you. At this time we will go to witnesses. And our first
witness for today on the first panel, Ms. Heather Ansley. She
is the Director of Veterans Policy, that is with VetsFirst. And
I welcome you to the table, as well as Mr. Wilson, and Mr.
Daley. Thank you for being here, and we look forward to your
testimony. And Ms. Ansley, we will begin with you. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF HEATHER L. ANSLEY, ESQ., MSW, DIRECTOR OF
VETERANS POLICY, VETSFIRST, A PROGRAM OF UNITED SPINAL
ASSOCIATION; JOHN L. WILSON, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; AND RICHARD C. DALEY,
ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF HEATHER L. ANSLEY, ESQ., MSW
Ms. Ansley. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley,
Congressman Walz, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting VetsFirst to share our
views and recommendations regarding the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program
budget and operations. VetsFirst strongly believes that VR&E's
services are critical to helping eligible disabled
servicemembers and veterans receive the skills and training
necessary to help them reintegrate into their families and
communities.
Specifically, VR&E's services provide these individuals
with the opportunity to return to or remain in the workforce.
The opportunity to participate in the workforce is critical
because employment provides people with both financial and
social benefits that contribute to an enhanced sense of purpose
and higher quality of life.
As a result of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
current state of the economy, the number of veterans that are
requesting and receiving VR&E services is forecasted to
steadily increase. Compounded by an unemployment rate of almost
9 percent across all sectors, higher for Operation Enduring
Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans, competition
for employment opportunities is harder than ever. VR&E services
provide veterans with the
competitive edge needed for precious employment opportunities.
It is vital to the success of VR&E that Congress ensure
continued investment and proper resource allocation to this
program. Veterans with disabilities must be able to receive the
services and resources critical to ensuring that they
successfully complete and excel in their rehabilitation.
Although VR&E has increased its workforce in recent years,
VetsFirst remains concerned that VR&E lacks a sufficient number
of employees. VR&E must have an appropriate number of properly
trained personnel capable of ensuring eligible veterans gain
timely entrance to services, and once enrolled can dedicate the
time needed to work with individual veterans in the
development, implementation, and completion of their
rehabilitation plans. Ensuring VR&E has the staff needed to
assist veterans in returning to the workforce is a critical
aspect of helping veterans with disabilities to reestablish
their identity as a productive citizen. Furthermore, VetsFirst
believes that there are still other barriers preventing
veterans from receiving services. Specifically the arbitrary
timeline for eligibility for VR&E services and the cap for
independent living services must be eliminated.
Services that seek to return veterans to the workforce and
allow them to live independently should be heavily encouraged.
Veterans who are initially eligible may not need the services
until after the 12-year delimiting period has expired. Even
though applications filed outside of this period may be
accepted if the veteran has a serious employment handicap,
potentially eligible veterans may believe that they will not be
accepted and may thus not apply.
Similarly VetsFirst believes that the cap for independent
living services should be eliminated. For veterans needing the
skills and resources to allow them to live independently VR&E
services are critical. Although it may appear that demand does
not exceed the cap, its mere existence requires careful
management to ensure that the veterans who most need to
participate in the independent living program are able to
access the services when needed. The removal of the cap will
ensure that veterans needing independent living services will
not be delayed or denied in receiving those
services.
VetsFirst also believes that VR&E should encourage as
appropriate the full employment potential of every participant.
Consequently, VetsFirst believes that VR&E's self-employment
track should not be targeted only to those who have severe
disabilities or require special accommodations.
For veterans who seek employment through the traditional
workforce, VR&E must provide increased follow-up to ensure that
veterans have long-term employment success. VR&E must prepare a
veteran not only for today's workforce but also anticipate the
demands of tomorrow's workplace.
To assist veterans in obtaining the right types of
employment, VR&E has worked to increase collaboration with
other agencies and organizations that provide employment and
rehabilitation assistance for both veterans and people with
disabilities. VetsFirst is pleased that VR&E has recently been
in the process of working with the Rehabilitation Services
Administration with the Department of Education. Formalizing a
connection between VR&E and State rehabilitation agencies is
critical to ensuring that veterans with disabilities receive
the services that they need to help them return to or remain in
the workforce.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to share VetsFirst's
views on VA's VR&E program budget and operations. This
concludes my testimony and I look forward to answering any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ansley appears on p. 36.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you very much. I believe we will
go ahead and receive testimony from the rest of the panel and
then we will move into questions. Next we have Mr. John Wilson,
Assistant National Legislative Director for the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV). Thank you for being here and I look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am glad to be here this morning on behalf of
Disabled American Veterans to address the fiscal year 2012
budget and operations of the Department of Veterans Affairs
Vocational and Rehabilitation Employment Service. First, the
fiscal year 2012 budget.
We were pleased with the Committee's Views and Estimates,
which recognize that with the projected caseload increase of
over 10,000 the 129 full-time equivalent (FTE) increase called
for in the President's budget would do little to positively
impact the average caseload of between 135 to 150 veterans per
counselor. The recommendation to reallocate $5.5 million from
the general administration account to support 50 additional
VR&E counselors recognizes the continued demand for these
important services, which dictates a larger staff sized to
respond to that demand. In accordance with DAV Resolution #307,
which seeks increased VR&E staffing, DAV and our Independent
Budget coauthors support the Committee's Views and Estimates
call for an increase in VR&E staff to 179 FTE in fiscal year
2012.
The second area to address is the operation of VR&E and
ways it could be improved. We encourage Congress to continue to
monitor the results of VR&E's ongoing Business Process
Reengineering Initiative, or BPR, that it began in February,
2010. The BPR contractors are conducting a work measurement and
skill study focused on streamlining processes and paperwork,
redefining roles and metrics, as well as leveraging technology
to improve delivery of services. Once completed, we encourage
Congress to provide the necessary funding for any identified
staffing needs and targeted training in core competencies as
well as possible legislative remedies.
While the BPR is an important initiative in the near term,
we see the longitudinal study Congress mandated with the
passage of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2008 as equally
important in the long term. This study has the potential to
provide insight on the effectiveness of the VR&E program, its
delivery of services, staff size, level of expertise, ongoing
staff training requirements, optimum service delivery
mechanisms, and the accuracy of the reporting outcomes that the
Chairman and the Ranking Member talked about earlier. Such
information could certainly guide future legislation and policy
decisions for this critical program. Unfortunately, while the
first reports are due to Congress on July 1st of this year this
study remains unfunded. We agree that a longitudinal study is
needed and, therefore, urge Congress to appropriate the
necessary funds to support this effort.
The last area I wish to address has to do with the delivery
of VR&E's services, as well as all VA programs designed to
enhance the economic security of veterans, specifically those
focused on employment, education, and business assistance. In
accordance with DAV resolution number 306, and the
recommendation of the fiscal year 2012 Independent Budget (IB),
we call for the reorganization of all such programs within a
single new administration, the Veterans Economic Opportunity
Administration.
While all Americans face challenges during economic
downturns, veterans are particularly hard hit. Statistics
clearly illustrate the struggle that veterans face in
transitioning from military service to civilian life.
Unemployment statistics for February 2011 reveal an overall
unemployment rate of 9.2 percent for all veterans, and 12.5
percent for veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
While there is some improvement from the March 2010
unemployment rate of 14.7 percent for this second group, it is
still higher than the national average. On any given night it
is estimated that there are 79,000 homeless veterans. While
this number has decreased in recent years it is still too high.
Congress approved an historic Post-9/11 GI Bill, but we
know too well how VA has struggled to implement this program
and deliver the benefit. Vocational rehabilitation programs for
disabled veterans have failed to achieve adequate success rate,
despite improvements in recent years. VA programs designed to
provide assistance to veteran entrepreneurs have fallen short
of expectations, in part due to a lack of funding and proper
organization.
In order for VA's programs that affect veterans' economic
status to achieve better outcomes, DAV and our partners in the
IB believe that the VR&E Service, the Education Service, the
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the
Homeless Veterans Program Office, and Home Loan Guaranty should
be housed under a new and separate administration, the Veterans
Economic Opportunity Administration. Veterans programs have
become more complex over the years and their dispersed nature
has challenged senior management to effectively deliver the
services for each program. Establishing a fourth administration
within VA dedicated to creating economic opportunities for
veterans would increase the visibility and accountability of
all employment related programs. It would also allow an
overburdened VBA to focus on the monumental task of reforming
the disability claims processing system.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 40.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We will next move to
Mr. Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director for the
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). Mr. Daley. Thank you again
for being here.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. DALEY
Mr. Daley. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee. PVA is honored to
participate in this hearing today to share our views on the
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program. I have
submitted our written testimony for the record and in the
interest of time I will highlight just a few of our concerns.
PVA is one of the coauthors of The Independent Budget, and
along with the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars. So we do share in Mr. Wilson's
concern about combining everything involved with economic
development into one program sometime, but that is a big thing
to tackle at this point. But in the latest edition for fiscal
year 2012 Independent Budget we talk about the cap on the
independent living program. This is an arbitrary cap that went
from, originally, from 500 new disabled veterans per year in
the year 2000 to, bumped it up to 2,500, then it was recently
raised to 2,700 per year. Realizing the need for this program
Congress did raise the independent living admissions knowing
that there was a need for it. And this was always before there
was any conflict with the two separate conflicts going on, and
the Afghanistan issue having no end in sight. The independent
living program will probably enroll 2,695 severely injured
veterans for this year, just enough to come close to the cap.
If Congress raised the cap to 4,000 for next year I am sure the
VA could enroll 3,990 disabled veterans.
If there was no cap, how many veterans, how many seriously
injured veterans could benefit from this program? The
independent living program has flexibility that is needed when
working with seriously injured veterans that are not ready for
employment. This program can help the maximize the quality of
life and encourage independence in the veteran's daily living
activities.
Recently, I have heard from several service officers that
they were disappointed in the Vocational Rehabilitation Program
pertaining to the independent living program. This year the
program is used to modify, has been used to make some
modifications on seriously injured, or terminal Amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. And the independent living
program was used for this because of the rapid access to the
funds. The VA has since changed their policies and you can no
longer use the independent living program for the ALS veterans.
So now they go through the standard Specially Adapted Housing
(SAH) grant, which can take up to 12 months. And it should not
take, but it does. So in many cases, probably more than half,
the ALS veteran is dying before the house ever gets modified,
before they can go back home and spend the last few months of
their lives with their family members. So this is probably the
correct use of the funds that is going through the proper
program. But the speed that was available in using the
independent living money was really appreciated by our service
officers because they could get the independent living
counselor to approve it, they could get a contractor that the
VA has used before, that knows the VA's standards. They could
make any modifications, they can be paid, and the veteran could
be home in months. But now they go through the other procedure.
That is only one of the issues that is of concern and I hear of
it constantly. So it is an ongoing issue.
That concludes my report. I will be available to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 45.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. We will move into questions
now. And my first question would be to any of you, and maybe
particularly to Ms. Ansley since you had mentioned the 12-year
delimiting date. The law provides VA with significant
flexibility about allowing veterans to participate in VR&E
beyond the delimiting date. Do you have any evidence about how
many veterans are being blocked from VR&E services because of
their 12-year delimiting date? And anybody can answer that. Any
other examples would be welcomed as well.
Mr. Daley. I brought that up with one of our service
officers and he said, well, most people do not know about the,
after 12 years. You know? Just as if a lot of people do not
know about the Vocational Rehabilitation program. Certainly
they do not know about the independent living program because
that is kind of the thing that has been tucked away, and they
do not want people to know about it because they can use it for
various things such as if the veteran needs a computer. They
can go out and buy him a computer to start doing some work
right now at his home.
But it, I think that it is probably not used that much just
because it is not advertised. If you do not know about it, you
cannot say I need more than 12 years because of this reason. I
need to apply and give me that exception.
Mr. Stutzman. Any ideas how we can do a better job? How the
Department could do a better job of reaching and advertising?
Ms. Ansley. I think certainly we need to make sure that
when veterans do become eligible that they are made aware that
this program is available. VR&E's mission to make veterans able
to return to employment, and to be independent. So that is
definitely something that we should be promoting, regardless of
whether or not it has been 12 years, or 13 years, or how many
people may not be aware of it. I think just by definition of
its mission it is something that we should always want to
encourage, that people would want to be employed and
independent. It is better for them. It is better for all of us.
So I think that it goes along with the continued outreach,
that we would like VA to have a better outreach in general to
veterans about what is available. And then to veterans who are
eligible for VR&E that they really understand what the services
are that are available and how that it works. Because a form
that you get, you know, with a bunch of other papers probably
is not sufficient.
Mr. Wilson. I would like to offer a comment as well.
Approaching veterans and their survivors and dependents
regarding the various benefits available to them becomes of
interest to individuals who need the benefit when life's
circumstances dictate the need. I may well get out of the
military and have some disability that I could file for. But I
do not necessarily do so until I find that in fact that
disability impacts my self-image about what I can and cannot do
in the workplace. As life goes on and I become older, and those
disabilities become more complicated, again, impacting my
ability to live life as I think I should. This prompts me to
then request Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
assistance. Yet many times applicants have already exceeded the
12-year limit. And this 12-year limit is arbitrary to the best
of my recollection, from what I can determine. We do not place
limits on veterans who file claims for compensation and
pension. There is not a restriction, so why is there a
restriction on using this particular VR&E benefit? Yes, a voc
rehab counselor can say you have an employment handicap, and
therefore, we can grant you an extension of services. But
again, if I am not aware of it until life's circumstances
dictate the need to reach out and find this assistance, I
simply will not be looking for it. I only look for it when
there is a need in my life. So the outreach program that VA
provides, and our national service officers across the U.S. who
talk to veterans may help make that possible. But certainly
more can be done.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. I am kind of hearing some
consensus but I would like to just ask this for the record.
What would be your top recommendation to improve the VR&E
program? Starting with Ms. Ansley, and then we will go to Mr.
Wilson and Mr. Daley.
Ms. Ansley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that our top
recommendation would certainly be to make sure that VR&E has
the resources that it needs to fulfill the mission that it
needs fulfill. Of course within that we support lifting of caps
and barriers to make this program accessible. But again, if
veterans are not aware of the program, and then once they are
aware the program does not have the resources and does not move
people through the program in a way that helps them complete
it, then it is a wasted opportunity.
Mr. Wilson. For myself I would offer that of the many
programs that Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment offers,
that are equally important, and without singling any one out,
necessarily, I would suggest the longitudinal study as a key
item that must be funded. It will provide insight into a
program that provides a critical service, and the current
metrics, on how success is measured. This can be changed. The
delivery mechanisms for services can be enhanced. The staff
structure and the training needed to continue their jobs is
important as well. Are the contracts that are offered managed
as effectively as possible? A longitudinal study can look into
all of those things.
Mr. Daley. Yes, as my colleague was saying to make sure
that they have the resources to do the job that they are
committed to do. What does that mean? Well it probably means
more money and more staff so they can actually, when the people
go through the training they can actually go out and find jobs
for these people. Because, you know, the economy is not doing
real well right now and I have talked with one of our voc rehab
people that is successful in placing a lot of people in
wheelchairs in employment. And he says no job has ever come to
his office. Nobody has ever called up and says, hey, do you
have any veterans or disabled veterans I can hire? He has to go
out, and he has to go out and meet with corporations. He
travels throughout several States. And he makes these contacts,
and he sets up the opportunity. Well this person can only work
part-time. Will you accept a part-time worker for a while? Yes?
Okay. So it has to be, you have to make the opportunity in the
outside business world rather than must give them the training
and show them how to write a resume and say goodbye, good luck.
But that would of course take more money and more
coordination through the program, and a different way of
thinking, probably.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Well first of all I want to thank each of you
and the organizations you represent for the phenomenal work you
do advocating for veterans. We really appreciate that. Mr.
Wilson, I am going to start with you. Like many of my
colleagues I have far too many young disabled veterans coming
back to my district and they all have the signature wounds of
this War: single or multiple amputations, traumatic brain
injuries (TBIs), some type of paralysis, or post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). Each of which presents its own unique
rehabilitation challenges. And we often get focused on silos
here in Washington, talking about specific programs without
ever thinking about how those programs affect each other. And
one of my big concerns about the effectiveness of any rehab
program is if veterans are not getting access to maximum
medical and psychological rehabilitation services, the
opportunities to be successful in vocational rehabilitation are
extremely limited.
We also know that if we do not provide veterans the
opportunity to reach their maximum potential from medical and
psychological rehabilitation we face very expensive chronic
disease challenges, which make up about two-thirds of our
health care spending. So what I would like to hear from you,
Mr. Wilson, and from you, Mr. Daley, and also from you, Ms.
Ansley, is are we doing enough right now in terms of the
medical and psychological rehabilitation of veterans to prepare
them to achieve their maximum potential in vocational
rehabilitation?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, sir. It is a compelling question, is
it not? These signature war wounds are some that none of us
wish to see, and wish to do all we can to help respond to the
needs of these veterans as they learn to live with them. The
previous Congress has been very generous with the Veterans
Health Administration (VHA) by providing funds from year to
year in advance, in advance appropriations, is the word I was
looking for. They have been very generous with advance
appropriations they have so VHA can deliver services necessary
to these disabled veterans.
This particular area is not one in which I delve
specifically, however. I would, if you would not mind sir, like
to address that for the record to you so I can provide a more
comprehensive reply.
[Mr. Wilson subsequently provided the information in the
response to Question #3 of the Post-Hearing Questions and
Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 58.]
Mr. Braley. Please do.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Daley, do you have any comments to offer?
Mr. Daley. Well, we are probably not doing enough but, you
know, we will not know till 10 years later when these veterans
are still not integrated into society, and they are not
employed, and some may be homeless. I speak as a person of the
Vietnam era that I have seen some of my people that I was in
the service with back in the sixties that never really adjusted
right, and the tools were not out there to help them. So PVA
would certainly want to be part of any efforts to try to figure
out what is needed right now. But, you know, it just hurts me
when I hear of situations such as has been in testimony in the
last year about a veteran, a posttraumatic stress combat
veteran, he calls up with a problem, and they say, well, you
know, he needs to see somebody now. And they say, well, you can
have an appointment next week. And then he commits suicide. You
know, did that have to happen? So we can probably be doing
more.
Mr. Braley. You know, you raised an important issue. And I
have a young man in my district who went to high school with my
daughter who is a recent paralyzed veteran. And the attitudes
and advances in medicine from Vietnam alone to these Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans who are paralyzed have changed
dramatically. Their expectations of their lifestyle, and
society's perception of them I think has changed dramatically.
So how does a veterans program which is administering still to
World War II era veterans, and young men who, and to some
extent young women, who play video games, and have expectations
of a workplace environment that they can continue to be
successful in that are far different than the way we used to
look at these issues, how should this agency be adapting to be
flexible to address their concerns?
Mr. Daley. A very good question. I wish I had the answer.
As we explore this----
Mr. Braley. That is why you are here.
Mr. Daley. As we explore this in the next year I am sure
you will have the voc rehab and other helping agencies here,
and maybe we can figure out what works and what does not work.
Mr. Braley. Thank you. Ms. Ansley, I want to talk to you a
little bit about your written testimony, where you express
concerns about the veteran to counselor ratio, which I think
all of us are concerned about. How has that ratio affected
veterans' participation in the VR&E programs? And what
suggestions do you have on how we address that issue?
Ms. Ansley. Certainly. I think that having a high ratio of
individual--as we mentioned earlier, the VR&E is a hands-on
program that allows the veteran to work with the counselors in
every part of the process and to be involved in the process. I
think that by not having a sufficient connection, you know,
having people who are quite frankly just carrying too much of a
load, cannot necessarily make the connection as well and may
lead to some of the fallout with veterans that drop out of the
process, do not continue in the process. I am also a social
worker by training, and so I understand what it is like to
carry high caseloads and what that means for a professional.
And you cannot give the devotion necessarily that you want. And
this is really a case where the individual who is working with
the veteran needs to be able to step in at every level of the
process and really help that veteran to not only write the plan
but to work through the plan and complete the plan.
As Rich was saying earlier, Mr. Daley, you know, counselors
that are working with people to actually get them into
employment, it is an intensive process. To identify
opportunities, to actually make that work properly. We, my
organization also works with all people who have disabilities.
And the unemployment rate for people with disabilities in
general is, it is abhorrent. So when we look at how that then
applies to veterans, they are bumping up against these same
problems. And it really is an intensive need to actually help
people to get in the workplace. And not only to get in the
workplace, just to get your foot in the door, but to really be
successful and to continue to move up and advance. And as the
workplace grows and changes that you have the skills you need
to do that. Because we know that that is not always happening.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired and
I yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. If I could just follow up
really quickly on that? What do you believe should be the, what
is a manageable caseload?
Ms. Ansley. I know that the caseload that is being looked
at is one to 125, which has been what State vocational
rehabilitation looks at. I think what we really need to do is
there have been studies looked at to, you know, how do we make
the workflow work better? And I think that we really need to
look at the program and complete some of the studies to
actually see what a good number is. Because we know that what
we have right now is not necessarily working. So I do not have
a specific number that I think if we hit this target it will be
good. But I think that that kind of shows for us that we really
have not examined what would be the appropriate number. Because
we want to really look at the outcome. You know, we want
veterans to be in the workforce. And that is what they want,
too. So how do we get to that point?
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Mr. Huelskamp.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express
my appreciation to the conferees before the Committee today. I
appreciate your advocacy and I am eager to dive into these
issues with you. As far as my district, it is a little
different than some others. A very rural district, and a lot of
questions would be directed to that, or I hope your answers
would be.
But first a general question. The State of Kansas, so we
have, I think, a golden opportunity to address some of these
issues. Particularly we have a new governor, and a
restructuring, I think, of State government's aspect with some
veterans service representatives (VSRs). And do you have any
general advice? That you would say, hey, if I could restart it
over, and restructure an entire State in terms of addressing
some of these issues? General thoughts from each one of you,
how I might recommend changes to a new administration in a
particular State?
Ms. Ansley. Thank you, Congressman. I am very familiar with
Kansas. And as you see, I have lived in Kansas. I understand
the western side of the State and what it really means to be a
veteran in a rural area, and the lack of resources that are
available. I think it is important for States to really look at
how they can work collaboratively with other groups that are in
the area. How to work collaboratively with the VA, with the
veterans service organizations. Because as we know in
communities where you are driving a couple of hours just to get
to services, like you are doing in southwest Kansas, that
people really need the opportunity to be able to figure out who
is already doing what where, and how can we work with them to
augment that. I think that as we look at people, of course
States have budgetary concerns. And the Federal Government,
everybody is looking at how do we make fewer dollars go
farther. So I think that helping with that collaboration and
looking at what other people are doing is a good place to start
using your resources appropriately and to help our veterans.
Mr. Huelskamp. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. I would like to respond to that question as
well. I think it is important for State workforce agencies to
coordinate very closely with Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment services across the Nation, those 57 regional
offices we speak about. The contracting relationship is key,
because in rural settings contractors are often relied upon by
VR&E because they have a wide array of services to provide. And
yet we have been concerned in the past about the ability of
VR&E to manage those contracts effectively. That is why we
called for in my written testimony 50 additional staff to help
manage the VR&E contracting workload beyond the 29 that they
have now.
So in the State of Kansas if you want services delivered to
your veterans, and certainly you do, you want it to be as
effective as possible, then you want that delivery to go
smoothly. Thus proper contract management with appropriate
measures and oversight, and proper data entry into the system
to track those contracts in the first place is essential.
And lastly, I would look to VA, Voc Rehab, and the other
agencies to provide training to the State workforce agency
employees on the signature wounds that we were talking about
earlier, PTSD, TBI, how those impact a person in the workplace.
So that those employers are not hesitant to employ them, but
understand and embrace them.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. Mr. Daley, do you have any comment?
Mr. Daley. Yes, thank you. I have seen in the last few
years some States have used these mobile big vans, and they
drive around, and they advertise in advance, we will be in this
town for 2 days. They have the computers there. They can help
you write a resume. They can show you how to do a job search.
And I think that is a good outreach method for some of the
rural areas. I really like that. But, I mean, that is not
Federally funded, I think it is through the Federal and State.
But that is, I think that is a good way to get the message out.
And then while you have the veterans coming there you can
always do other things. Do a blood pressure check or, you know,
ask them other questions that you may want to get. But that
would be one way to service the rural areas.
Mr. Huelskamp. Well I appreciate that, and I appreciate the
first answer particularly for just kind of recognizing the
distance that a veteran I visited with in Hays, Kansas, at a
town hall. He is expected to drive 183 miles for his medical
treatments. And he is not disabled. But for a, just a simple
steroid shot. And it is pretty hard to maintain a job when you
are expected to drive 3 hours one way and 3 hours back, and I
might note you drive by about ten hospitals who could do the
same thing they were doing at the VA. And I know that is a
little bigger here. But you know, when you have to drive
hundreds of miles to get your medical care it is just near
impossible to keep a job if we are requiring them to go to a VA
hospital for some of those. And so we are talking about some of
those things. I know there are some pilot programs. But that
becomes a difficulty. There is just no way to keep a job. And
this gentleman actually is a VSR and having that difficulty. He
understands very directly, but to drive 183 miles it just, that
is just simply foolish that we would require that. And so we
can have the best job training in the world. But if you are
going to tell your employer you are going to leave 1 day a week
just to go get a simple weekly shot, it just makes it darn near
impossible. But I appreciate, will pass it along with the folks
in Kansas. I appreciate the experience there. But we are just
trying to put together a system that works, you know, across a
huge rural divide. So I appreciate your advocacy here and your
continued suggestions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you so much. Yes, I was just going to
say. I would yield my time to----
Mr. Walz. I will defer to my colleague.
Ms. Sanchez. No, Mr. Walz, you showed up for the hearing on
time. You should go first.
Mr. Stutzman. My apologies, I did not mean to cause any----
Mr. Walz. Well thank you----
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
gentle lady. I am sure your questions are more pointed but I
appreciate the opportunity. I thank you each for being here and
your advocacy for your veterans. And I think it is absolutely
clear you care deeply about this program, and you know it is a
good one and that is why you hold everyone accountable. And I
appreciate that, and I think our friends at VA appreciate that
also. These are great suggestions.
I am going to have to use my, at least a minute of this,
for my mandatory soap box on seamless transition. I hear all of
you talk about my 50 years of outreach problems. We have
veterans coming off of active service and let we drop off the
cliff, they do not know about the programs. We have problems
getting them back in, and when we eventually do the problems
have been exacerbated and we go down that road of giving less
care at more cost. And that is unfortunate. So I appreciate all
of you being there.
Mr. Daley, I would just ask you, is it PVA's position that
we should lift the cap and allow more folks into this? Because
I have to say from my perspective, this program, Voc Rehab, is
universally praised by our veterans. They love it. It is a good
thing to have out there. But I hear this same thing, if there
could be more access, more folks. Would that be your position?
Mr. Daley. Well the cap on the independent living program,
of course that is backed by the four coauthors of The
Independent Budget. Everything that is in there we all agree
on, though we do not always agree on some things so it does not
get included. But we think that there is a need for that.
Because as you know it was started in a peacetime era. And we
have so many serious brain injuries and things that you know
the person is not going to be able to work this year or maybe
next year, but how else can the VA help them? Well, let us see
what we can do with the independent living program, the
flexibility there.
Mr. Walz. All right. Well I appreciate that. What is your
position also, and I will ask the others, on the use of
contract suppliers? How do you see that?
Mr. Daley. It is a necessary evil, I guess. You know, the
VA cannot do everything. But when you are dealing one on one
with the veteran, of course I would always like it to be a VA-
trained counselor, somebody that has had some experience and
knows, it cannot always be a veteran. But as you know, veterans
understand the issues, it seems to be a little bit better than
non-veterans. But certainly a VA counselor that has had the
experience rather than a social worker that has just got out of
college. And they are going to go down the form, check the
right checks, and it is done. No, if kept to a minimum, and
certainly overseen by the VA to make sure that the right
emphasis is placed when the contractors are doing their work.
Mr. Walz. I appreciate your candidness. That helps us. Ms.
Ansley, I am just going to ask you and we go to this. The one
thing I have noticed in, and I think it is probably true of
every generation. I especially see it now with this new
generation. I think Mr. Braley was hitting on this, the
Chairman a little bit, there is a sense of independence amongst
these folks. They want to get back to it. The one thing I see
is this sense of wanting to be self-employed. And my question
is, how do we prepare them, or how does this program, Ms.
Ansley, do you know of any where we have been able to get a
start up business? That we have been able to help a veteran
become self-employed and be an entrepreneur?
Ms. Ansley. Thank you, Congressman. I do not have a
specific example of that. I know that that is something that we
definitely support. Self-employment, small business, is
something that veterans are perhaps uniquely suited to, with
their abilities that they have learned, with leadership, with
training in the military. And small businesses do provide some
of the flexibility that people need, with maybe being able to
work part-time, or you know, maybe you work better in the
evenings. I know some people who have brain injuries, mornings
are when they work and afternoons are when they have to sleep.
And they have different times of day that work for them. And so
it really does provide more flexibility.
We would like to see more of an emphasis on the self-
employment program and working with the other programs that are
available with the VA, within the Small Business Administration
(SBA), to help veterans to do that. Because we do see that as a
vital need. Particularly right now when we have employment
issues, and people, may be going out to get employment is not
working as well but----
Mr. Walz. Is there an ability to collaborate amongst those
organizations now? Or are they siloed up pretty hard to make
that happen?
Ms. Ansley. They are fairly siloed. They do try to work
together. I know that they are, that VR&E is trying to engage
in efforts to bring those groups together. But I think like, as
you see within a lot of government programs, become siloed. But
we would like to see all of those different pieces that are out
there already, bring those together in a way that allows better
collaboration, allows use of resources.
Mr. Walz. Right. Do any of you know, I will end with this,
do any of you know has there ever been a veteran use this
program, even if you do not have a specific example but maybe
you other two, that used it, became self-employed, and then
actually got a government contract? Do you know if that has
ever happened?
Mr. Wilson. I do not have an example of that, Congressman
Walz, myself.
Mr. Walz. Anything anecdotally you ever heard this? Because
my veterans are convinced it has never happened. I have heard
them say it. They do not think there is a single case. I guess
I will ask the next panel that maybe has some more detail----
Mr. Wilson. No, it is an interesting idea. Our concern, and
the idea we discuss in the Veterans Economic Opportunity
Administration proposal, is that we do not believe that the VA
has been as effective in reaching out on this particular issue
as it could be.
Mr. Walz. Okay.
Mr. Wilson. That particular office is not well funded.
Mr. Walz. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. The VIP that is supposed to track all of this,
so you can get a government contract, is months behind. And----
Mr. Walz. And I ask it not as a criticism towards this
office and this program. It is once again, our veterans love
this program. They see it as effective. They simply see where
it can be more effective, and we can do, and that is I, I
appreciate that spirit that you have taken on this. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Walz. Now, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Saved the best for last, did you?
Mr. Stutzman. That is right, exactly.
Ms. Sanchez. I am teasing. Good morning to you all, and
thank you so much for coming and testifying. I am going to
start my questioning with Ms. Ansley. In your written
testimony, you note that being eligible for VR&E services does
not automatically confer entitlement to services. And I am
curious to know if you think it should? And why or why not?
Ms. Ansley. I think that, as I have mentioned earlier,
employment, opportunities to help people to become employed, or
live independently, are definitely not something that we should
limit. Of course, you know, we have resource considerations.
But I think if we look at the long-term aspects of people who
are able to become employed who are able to, quite frankly,
become taxpayers to contribute to society, all of the different
aspects, I think that investment up front to help people to be
able to do those things really nets us out in the long run so
that it is, the individual maybe does not have to look at other
programs where they would have to look for income. They are
able to be more self-sufficient. So I would say that we would
err on the side of including people. What could it hurt to help
people train to be able to get a job?
Ms. Sanchez. I share those sentiments. And I know that it
does take a certain commitment of personnel and resources and
funding to serve all of those who would be eligible for this.
But I share your opinion that in the long run I think it would
actually be more cost effective if we did allow those who were
eligible to have the services.
In your written testimony you also note that a significant
number of veterans do not successfully complete their
rehabilitation plans. And I am wondering what is the most
important thing that the Department can change to make sure
that veterans complete those plans??
Ms. Ansley. Again something that I think we have discussed
is I think we need to look at why veterans are not completing.
And some of the studies that are in process, or have not been
completed, they have been discussed, but I do not think we have
a really good handle on necessarily why it is that a veteran
does or does not complete, does or does not hear. You know, the
various aspects of where they end up, I think we really need to
look at that so that we can effectively then target those
resources to make sure that we are, you know, directly spending
what we have is going to places that needs to be to get people
the opportunities that they need. So I think that that is
something that we definitely need. We need the follow through
with the studies to really get that answer.
Ms. Sanchez. Because it just sort of goes without saying
that if you have programs in place that are meant to help
people and then people are not succeeding in those programs you
might want to go back and ask the question why? What are the
barriers? Or what are the obstacles that we can try to help
remove to make sure that it is a more successful program in the
long run?
I am interested to know if you find any differences in
completion rates between men versus women?
Ms. Ansley. That is an interesting question and one that I
do not have the answer for. I would be happy to take a look at
that and get back with you for the record. I think that that is
something, though, that we definitely do need to look at. The
unique concerns that are, as women in the workplace have unique
concerns that maybe necessarily male veterans do not have with
regard to you have an employment now but you still need
possibly childcare. You have a lot of other balls in the air
that you are trying to focus on. So I would be happy to take a
look at that and get back with you. That is a very important
question.
[Ms. Ansley subsequently provided the information in the
response to Question #7 in the Post-Hearing Questions and
Responses for the Record, which appear on p. 56.]
Ms. Sanchez. I am very interested in that as a working mom
myself----
Ms. Ansley. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. With a 2-year-old I understand
the difficulty of trying to balance that. I appreciate your
answers and thank you so much. Mr. Daley, in your written
testimony, and in some of your oral comments you talked about
necessary evil, but you questioned the use of contractors that
perform the individual one-on-one work with veterans. And I
share your concerns about subcontracted employees in general
because I have my fears about whether they have the same
expertise, and commitment to excellence, and longevity in their
jobs, and experience as career Federal employees. I am
wondering if you could just maybe detail some of the
shortcomings you see in the contracted positions?
Mr. Daley. I am not that knowledgeable about some of the
shortcomings. It was just a generality about, you know, the VA
and the professionals working with the disabled veterans is
certainly a preference. I can look into that and get back to
you in writing with some answers to that.
[Mr. Daley subsequently provided the information in the
response to Question #4 in the Post-Hearing Questions and
Responses for the Record, which appear on p. 60.]
Ms. Sanchez. I appreciate that. Any of the other panel
members maybe have some of the, maybe have an answer for what
are some of the shortcomings of subcontract employees in this
particular context?
Mr. Wilson. I can offer, ma'am, that we know a couple of
years ago the VR&E national acquisition strategy came under
some criticism because the contracts were let from Central
Office to provide services across all regions were, so VR&E
could provide the same services at each particular locality
that were otherwise unavailable. Unfortunately these
performance contract services were not delivered well nor were
the contracts managed necessarily well according to a VA Office
of Inspector General (OIG) report of the time. One of the
issues was a lack of entry of data into the systems that track
contracts in the first place and how they are performing, what
are the contract requirements and how is that being managed.
There was some training that was provided that VA OIG talked
about, yet that training did not seem to give the results that
they were seeking. Training has since being offered again as we
go towards a new opportunity to provide contracts for services
to veterans across the 57 regional offices. I encourage through
this Subcommittee's oversight role, looking at that particular
issue to make sure we are getting the bang for that buck we
want when providing veterans these important services.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you for your answer. That is one of the
concerns I have, is the oversight of how the contracts are
being managed and whether or not they are performing the work
adequately to help our veterans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you very much. And I appreciate
each and every one of you for your testimony and for answering
our questions. Obviously there is a lot of work for all of us
to do and we anticipate continuing to work together and
continuing this dialogue. So thank you for your time, and I
appreciate your willingness to be here. And we will move to the
next panel. So thank you.
Okay, at this time we welcome Mr. John McWilliam, and Ms.
Ruth Fanning, and Ms. Iris Cooper, who will be part of our
second panel. And they come to the table, we will start with
Mr. John McWilliam, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Operations and Management, Veterans' Employment and Training
Service (VETS) with the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL). Thank
you very much for being here, and I am looking forward to your
testimony and the discussion here today. So Mr. McWilliam, we
will start with you.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN M. MCWILLIAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND RUTH A. FANNING,
DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY IRIS
COOPER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND CONSTRUCTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MCWILLIAM
Mr. McWilliam. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today
as a witness before the Subcommittee and to speak to you about
our Department's interagency cooperation with the Department of
Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Office. The Veterans' Employment and Training Service proudly
serves veterans and transitioning servicemembers by providing
resources and expertise to assist and prepare them to obtain
meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities,
and protect their employment rights. Our programs are an
integral part of Secretary Solis' vision of good jobs for
everyone.
Several years ago, senior leadership from VETS and VR&E met
with the Subcommittee staff to discuss how the two agencies
could better collaborate. As a result of that meeting, a new
memorandum of agreement was executed. Three working groups were
established, later combined into a joint working group. The
goal of that group is to improve the quality of employment
services and job placements for veterans enrolled in the VR&E
programs. Both DoL and the VA published a technical assistance
guide document in December, 2008.
Much of VETS' interaction with the VR&E program is through
the workforce investment system and the outstationing of
disabled veterans outreach program specialists, or DVOPS, at
VR&E offices. To clearly identify roles and responsibilities
between our two organizations we have designated that
outstation DVOP as an intensive service coordinator. This
coordinator is involved at the front end of the VR&E process to
help veterans determine local labor market information. This
interaction was intended to facilitate the rehabilitation
planning process by providing the veteran and the VR&E
counselor with current data on salary and job outlook, as well
as increasing understanding of working conditions for specific
occupations.
At the conclusion of the rehabilitation program, the DoL
coordinator refers veterans to DVOPS at the one-stop career
centers. Those DVOPS then provide intensive services to
referred participants to assist then in obtaining employment.
Later in support of the technical assistance guide VETS issued
guidance that each State's Jobs For Veterans State grants
strategic plan would include this outstationing of a DVOPS
specialist at each VR&E regional office. We continue to work to
ensure that a DVOP is outstationed. There is currently a
veterans employment specialist, usually a DVOP, outstationed in
48 of the VA regional offices and in 19 satellite offices. The
remaining offices that do not have someone outstationed have
someone covering it from another location.
We are proud of our collaboration with the VA to increase
employment opportunities for service disabled veterans. This
concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. And I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam appears on p. 47.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Let us continue with the
testimony. We will move to Ms. Fanning. And Ms. Fanning is the
Director of the Voc Rehab Service in the Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank you
for being here, and I will let you begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RUTH A. FANNING
Ms. Fanning. Thank you. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I really
appreciate you inviting me to discuss the Department of
Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
VetSuccess Program. I am pleased to be accompanied by Ms. Iris
Cooper, the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office
of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction.
I would like to begin by giving you a little overview of
the Vocational Rehabilitation program. The primary mission of
our VetSuccess program is to assist veterans with service-
connected disabilities to prepare for and obtain suitable and
sustainable careers through the provision of services
individually tailored to each veteran's needs. VetSuccess
provides a broad range of employment services, including
translation of military experience to civilian skill sets;
direct job placement; short-term training to augment existing
skills; long-term training including on-the-job training,
college training, or services that support self-employment; and
independent living services to assist the most seriously
disabled veterans who are unable to seek employment at this
time. VR&E also provides extensive outreach and early
intervention services through our Coming Home to Work program.
Next, I would like to talk about our fiscal year 2012
budget. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for VetSuccess
supports 1,286 full-time employees who will provide services to
a projected 15 percent increase from 2010 to 2012 and will
expand two very important programs. First, 110 employees will
be utilized to increase VetSuccess' early intervention and
outreach through the joint VA/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
integrated disability evaluation system program. VetSuccess
counselors will provide separating servicemembers with a
mandatory initial counseling session, followed by continuing
vocational services for those members who elect to continue to
participate in VetSuccess.
In addition, nine counselors were also requested to expand
the current VetSuccess on Campus initiative. This service will
augment the current Voc Rehab counselors and Vet Center
counselors that are embedded at eight campuses who provide on
campus support to GI Bill participants that includes counseling
services, assistance in accessing VA benefits, help in
overcoming barriers to retention and graduation, such as
physical or mental health issues, financial issues, etcetera,
and assistance in connecting with other veteran students and
forming a community of veteran students on campus.
In addition, the fiscal year 2012 budget request supports
modernization of the Disabled Transition Assistance program,
often referred to as the DTAP program, making it readily
accessible to servicemembers, veterans, family members, Guard
and Reservists, on a just-in-time basis and through multiple
channels.
Now I would like to discuss the status of the VetSuccess
contracts. After the national acquisition strategy contracts
ended in July 2009, VR&E developed an interim contract solution
for regional offices needing continued contract services. Local
VR&E programs were assisted in awarding local bridge contracts
that were standardized until new VetSuccess contracts could be
put into place. Currently, we have 62 bridge contracts overseen
by 29 contracting officers who are stationed throughout the
field. This week we have begun the process of awarding the new
VetSuccess contracts, which will standardize contracting
procedures; including structured report templates; standardized
referral processes and forms; and automated invoicing,
automated invoice approval, and payment processes.
Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about our
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) efforts. VR&E service
recently launched a transformation project geared at making
VA's VetSuccess program the premier 21st Century vocational
rehabilitation and employment program. The project focuses on
modernizing and streamlining services using a veteran-centric
and advocacy approach, including continuing to enhance our
VetSuccess.gov employment Web site. We are also working in
collaboration with VA's Innovation Initiative, or VAi2. We have
recently engaged in an industry competition and have just
awarded our first of three contracts to build self-employment
incubators and tools to assist more veterans in owning their
own businesses. We just announced and had a Webinar for a self-
management industry initiative that will allow the most
seriously disabled veterans to work in the career of their
choosing and live as independently as possible, as well as
providing a number of other self-management tools. And finally,
we are launching, on April 18th, a VA employee innovation
competition to allow the staff who work each day with
veterans--on boots on the ground--to identify additional
program enhancements that we can add to our BPR effort.
In conclusion, the VA will continue to seek new and
innovative ways to assist veterans to achieve their goals for
productive and meaningful lives. The VA will continue to work
with all sectors of government and private and public
employment communities to assist veterans to reach their
highest potential in this challenging economy.
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and I welcome
any questions that you may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fanning appears on p. 49.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you very much. I will begin with
the questions. According to the VETS testimony, the State
workforce agencies placed 35 percent of those who completed
their VR&E program but failed to place the other 65 percent.
Why, any explanation for that? Either DoL or the VA?
Mr. McWilliam. Mr. Chairman, we normally expect the
outcomes to be somewhere to that experience in the one-stop
career centers. During that same period of time, it was for
disabled veterans for the one-stop career center, it was 42
percent. So the 35 percent is very disappointing. However, I do
not believe that that is an accurate reflection of what
actually happened. As we have looked at 2010, which was our
first year of new reporting, I see that there is a problem in
data identification. And we are not properly identifying the
people who have closed their services. So in other words, we
are counting in the denominator of the equation people who are
still actively looking for employment. I have done some quick
back of the envelope calculation in the last week preparing for
the hearing. If I just looked at closed cases, that would raise
it to 51 percent, which would be a very effective program. We
will keep the Committee apprised of this as we look through it
for the next 6 months to validate that data.
Ms. Fanning. And I would like to say VR&E does track those
veterans that are placed strictly by VR&E or by the VETS
program, the DVOPs and Local Veterans' Employment
Representative (LVERs), or by a combination thereof. I do not
have that data with me. I would be happy to provide it for the
record.
But I want to say that many veterans will not be referred
by Voc Rehab to the VETS program for placement assistance
because they already have employment. We really focus on
internships and building on transferable skills. And veterans
many times by the time they graduate already have a job. If
they already have a job they do not need additional employment
assistance, unless they are in the wrong job. And one of my
main concerns and one of my main focuses throughout the
program, and you will hear this probably repeated as you ask me
other questions, is that we get veterans into careers that will
sustain them throughout the course of their life as
disabilities may worsen, that will help them catch up with
their peer group while they were serving our country, that will
help them live the American dream, send their kids to college.
So we really are focused on careers. And we find that those
veterans who do complete college are more likely to be employed
at the time that they graduate. So that may account for some of
the disparity.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, and also looking at some of the
numbers. The VA has stated that over 10,000 participants were
rehabilitated last year, but only about 5,000 of these
participants were referred to the State workforce agencies. Can
you give us information on what happened with the other 5,000
participants? Where did they end up?
Ms. Fanning. Well, and as I just mentioned, my guess is
that the other 5,000 did not need additional assistance from
the Department of Labor's VETS program. We do not want to
burden them by referring veterans who already have a job, who
already have those skills and are employed when they graduate,
and that we are just simply following up to ensure that the job
is stable, and that we close them when they are ready to be
closed, if they do not have any additional needs.
Mr. Stutzman. So----
Ms. Fanning. We really focus, and the whole purpose of the
joint workforce, and I apologize because I think I interrupted
you. But the point of the joint workforce group that we have
together, and even though we provided trainings well over a
year ago, and colocated VETS staff with our VR&E staff, that
joint workforce group is still in place. Their purpose now is
to continue to monitor the programmatic changes that we put in
place, to continue to provide training as we identify it being
needed. And currently we are working to put a survey out to all
of the offices to monitor key metrics to see if any offices
have fallen off, or if we can identify any promising practices
that we can implement elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Stutzman. So there is just no data on the other half,
roughly the other 5,000? They just, sign up for the program,
something comes available to them, and they move elsewhere, and
do not respond? Or what? What is kind of the process here? I
guess I do not understand what, if they are participating, what
happens to them? I mean, I know they may have gotten a job. But
they do not communicate that back to the Department?
Ms. Fanning. They do communicate it back to their
vocational rehabilitation counselor. And if the Department of
Labor is already involved with that veteran we are taking joint
credit. You know? It is like a football team. It does not
matter who crosses----
Mr. Stutzman. Right.
Ms. Fanning [continuing]. The end zone, the whole team gets
credit for the--I am not a sports person so I should not use
sports analogies--the touchdown. So if VETS is already involved
obviously we are communicating with them and they get joint
credit for that placement. And perhaps I am not understanding
your question completely? So I apologize if not. But we work
collaboratively with VETS. They come to our initial orientation
sessions. They are working with us when the veterans are brand
new in the VR&E program. The way their data system works, and
John please correct me if I am wrong, is that they cannot
register a veteran at that point. They do not register them
until they are actually looking for a job. So there is credit
that they do not get for the work that they do with some of our
veterans. They help us up front with labor market information
in collaboration with our employment coordinators. And in
collaboration with our employment coordinators throughout the
country the colocated DVOP or LVER really acts, they act
together as case managers for all DVOPs and LVERs throughout
that jurisdiction to ensure that each veteran is getting the
placement assistance they need.
In some cases we will even assign a placement contractor.
Because a veteran may require much more intensive services in
order to become employed. So we provide, based on that
individual's needs, whatever they need.
Mr. Stutzman. My question is really just what do we know
about the 5,000 participants that were not referred to a State
workforce agency? Do we have any data on them at all?
Ms. Fanning. We do collect data from every veteran that is
referred to the State workforce agency.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay.
Ms. Fanning. So I can provide that data back to you and, I
mean, we can work together to provide that data back to you.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
VR&E successfully rehabilitated 8,161 veterans into suitable
employment in FY 2010. When Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselors close a veteran's case as rehabilitated, they can
enter a code into the case management system to indicate
whether the veteran was assisted with job placement solely by
VA, solely by a DVOP, or whether there was a combination of
efforts by both. If both VA and a DVOP provided job placement
assistance, the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor can also
indicate a primary and secondary position, to indicate if one
had primary or secondary involvement in the placement of the
veteran. For the 8,161 veterans rehabilitated into suitable
employment in FY 2010:
VA was the sole provider of job placement
assistance for 2,167 veterans and the primary provider for
2,226 veterans.
The DVOP was sole provider of job placement
assistance for 80 of our veterans and the primary provider for
104 veterans.
The DVOP and VA provided a combination of efforts
for 1,833 veterans.
There was a Blank or NA for 1,751 veterans, meaning
that the Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor did not indicate
whether the DVOP assisted with placement or not.
Mr. Stutzman. And would the longitudinal study help with
more information regarding those who we do not have the data
with?
Ms. Fanning. I am very excited about the longitudinal
study. And I heard your opening comments and I will be happy to
talk about that.
Mr. Stutzman. Because I know----
Ms. Fanning. I think that what the longitudinal study
really will do for us over the long term is show us if we are
doing the right thing in terms of how much training we are
providing and are we really getting veterans into those career
paths? Because we are rehabilitating them when they are just
starting out in their career. We do not see what happens down
the road. And we know that many veterans who have completed
Chapter 31 have gone on to be Congressmen, they are top
officials in the VA, within the Department of Labor, just as
examples. So it would be great, I think, for the program and to
look at return on investment to see where those positive trends
are. On the reverse, where are we not doing as good of a job?
Are there certain geographic areas that stand out? Are there
certain parts of the program that stand out? I am really
interested in seeing the results of that data. Unfortunately, I
will not probably be around for the whole 20 years. But I think
I will be around long enough to benefit and help make some
programmatic changes as a result of the data that we get.
Mr. Stutzman. Because I noticed in your testimony you
mentioned that there will be a report. So that does not
necessarily mean it is going to be the longitudinal study. Is
it a different report? Or is it the study that----
Ms. Fanning. We will be providing a report for the
longitudinal study.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay.
Ms. Fanning. The report in July will not include all of the
data that you require----
Mr. Stutzman. Okay.
Ms. Fanning [continuing]. By the law. Even if we had been
fully successful in implementing the longitudinal study this
year as we would have liked, some of the data will be trailing.
For example, Internal Revenue Service data and Social Security
data will always be 1 to 2 years trailing.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Ms. Fanning. So even if we had been able to successfully
work with them in getting started this year we would not have
their data this year. So what we are doing is we have
identified the data within our own systems that we can provide,
working aggressively with our data shop so that we will have as
comprehensive of a report as possible for you in July.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is time for
a little reality check in the middle of the hearing. For those
of us who were not born inside the Beltway, and who spent most
of our lives working in private business, there is a huge
concern about the problem of paralysis by analysis.
Mr. Chairman, when I was in your shoes as a new Member of
Congress I chaired the Small Business Subcommittee on
Contracting and Technology. And my first hearing was to
determine why the Small Business Administration had not only
not completed a study ordered by Congress 7 years earlier but
was still fighting over the methodology to be used in that
study. And when you express concern about the problem with data
identification, Mr. McWilliam, you were emphasizing my point
exactly. Because most management consultants will tell you that
bold, decisive action is better even if you make mistakes than
inaction. And one of the concerns I have is according to a 2007
GAO report entitled, ``Audit of Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program Operations,'' a recommendation was made in
2007 that VR&E should improve its reporting method. And I do
not understand why that recommendation was never implemented.
Can either of you explain that for us?
Ms. Fanning. Well since 2007, we have increased the number
of reports that we have available. And have we done enough? I
do not believe so. One of the reasons for the Business Process
Reengineering project that has been launched is exactly to do
that. I think that the way we measure ourselves really does not
tell the full story of all the benefits that the Voc Rehab
program provides. We need more data. And frankly, you know, I
work in a large Administration that has one data shop. And I
cannot have that data shop all to myself. So they are also
working with Education, and with the Compensation and Pension
Service, and with other business lines. But we just recently
had a full day session with the data shop to go over the
reporting that we need.
We are in the process of migrating off of the Benefits
Delivery Network (BDN) legacy system--and I do not know if you
are familiar with that, but it is a very old, kind of difficult
to use computer system--into the corporate environment. What
that means is that all the reporting that we have in the BDN
system that we now rely on we have the opportunity not only to
migrate over into more robust reporting systems that will allow
us to do ad hoc reports and compare different sets of data
against each other, but to enhance our data systems.
Mr. Braley. Okay I understand that. I understand the
importance of longitudinal studies, and I know they help
improve performance. But for a lot of agencies longitudinal
studies are an excuse not to address the underlying problem. I
just had a staff retreat with my staff and I told them based
upon recommendations of management consultants that spectacular
failures are better than often mediocre successes. And one of
the things we know is that the reporting methodology is so
inconsistent and confusing that in your own PowerPoint
presentation you identified that 105,000 veterans being served
in fiscal year 2010 and report a rehab rate a page later of
75.8 percent. But the underlying data suggested only 10,000 are
being rehabilitated. And so for most of us those
inconsistencies are frustrating at getting at the root cause of
what we all care about, which is making sure we have the
highest success rate possible and put veterans to work. So what
are we doing to address these inconsistencies?
Ms. Fanning. First I would like to say that I understand
what you are saying. I want to point out that I do not believe
it is an inconsistency. It is a matter of how we are defining
our data at this point.
Mr. Braley. But do you understand my point that it may not
seem inconsistent from where you are sitting, but we represent
the people of our individual Congressional districts. And when
you use words that they do not understand and you show data
that seems completely inconsistent, that does not help us in
doing our job.
Ms. Fanning. I completely understand. And that is part of
the reason I have undertaken this BPR, of which a huge portion
is looking at our metrics and revising them to tell our story
better. And to use I believe the Chairman's example of
participants, and now you have brought it up again, the 105,000
participants include all enrollees, it is a snapshot first of
all, of current veterans enrolled in our program from applicant
to a veteran we may rehabilitate today. It is all statuses. We
know that once a veteran applies, about 37 percent of them will
never show up for their first appointment. So to call them a
participant bothers me. And I have had discussions with my
leadership. And this year we are revising the way we report our
data in the Performance and Accountability Report, and in the
Annual Benefits Report, to classify participants differently.
Participants are those individuals who are actively engaged in
the Voc Rehab process. So you will see a difference in the
future reports.
Now I did not come from inside the Beltway so I understand
what you are saying. I am a practitioner. I have been a
practitioner since 1982 and I have only been here in Washington
since 2007. And one of the things I have learned is that it
does take longer than I would like. I am used to being, I was
self-employed before I came to work for the government. I am
used to being able to make a decision and move. And it does
take longer than I would like to affect changes. But I am
confident that we now are in the position that we are moving
forward in the right direction. That we will define
participants in a way that makes sense to anyone picking up the
report. For example, of those veterans who applied last year
and completed counseling to the point of an entitlement
decision being made, 89 percent were found entitled and that
led to 27,000 rehabilitation plans being written. So when you
parse the data and look at it from that perspective, of how
many were rehabilitated, and understand that of those 27,000,
some are going to continue for another year, 2 years, 3 years
depending on what they are studying, it really does tell a
different story.
I am agreeing with both of you. I think changes are needed
and I am doing everything I can to make those changes, and I
expect you to hold me accountable for that.
Mr. Braley. Thank you. My time is expired and I will yield
back.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. I would like to yield just for a moment on a
followup from Ms. Sanchez on the previous question.
Ms. Sanchez. And I appreciate my colleague, and I
appreciate the line of questioning that Mr. Braley has been
pursuing. Ms. Fanning, in listening to your answer to Mr.
Braley's question, the question that I want to pose to you is,
rather than spend so much time trying to redefine what a
participant is, why are you not finding out why the 30-some-odd
percentage of veterans who make an appointment never bother to
show up for their first appointment? I mean to me you could
spend your whole day trying to define what this or that is, and
have intellectual arguments over how do you group the data, but
the fact of the matter is the way that you count may be a
little bit different than the witnesses that we have heard say
that there are dismal completion rates with the VR&E programs.
But the question is what are you doing to reach out to help
these veterans rather than spending your time, you know, in
these intellectual arguments over how do you define a
participant?
Ms. Fanning. Well I----
Ms. Sanchez. Because it seems to me that that is the most
important question.
Ms. Fanning. Thank you. And I agree. And I did not mean to
give the impression that I was looking at this only as an
intellectual exercise. I care very much about why that 37
percent of veterans are not showing up for their initial
appointment. That is one of the reasons that when I first came
in my position, one of the first things that I did was enhance
our early intervention and outreach program. Because as a
rehabilitation counselor I know that the closer the
intervention is to the disability occurring, the more likely
success is for that individual with a disability. And we did,
we have vastly increased our outreach. We have 13 full-time
counselors in rehabilitation at military treatment facilities,
and Coming Home to Work coordinators in every State reaching
out to VHA hospitals, Coming Home events, Post Deployment
Health Reassessment events, Yellow Ribbon events. And we have
seen a corresponding increase in applicants.
In addition though, really I think to get to the core of
your question, we did a study, we contracted a study to look at
veterans who dropped out at every phase of the program. Once
veterans are in a rehabilitation program, they are the least
likely to drop out. They, once they have that relationship with
their counselor they stay engaged and very few drop out. What
we found were the two primary reasons for drop out, first is
medical issues. And second is financial issues.
Now luckily, at least for those veterans eligible for the
new GI Bill, the financial issues will be largely addressed
with the recent passage of Public Law 111-377, if I have that
correct, with them now being eligible for the Basic Allowance
for Housing as the GI Bill participants are. The remainder of
veterans will still only receive the subsistence allowance at
the VR&E rate.
In terms of the medical issues, what we did was provide an
extreme amount of training to our staff, particularly on the
signature disabilities of the current conflict. So they
understand how to work with veterans with PTSD, with Traumatic
Brain Injuries, with polytrauma. We also provided a lot of
resources and assistance to them in understanding assistive
technology, the advances in medical services that make almost
any job possible for any individual. We are working to change
the culture of our program to look, from the medical model to
one of looking at abilities. So that we are empowering
veterans, putting them in the drivers seat, and helping them
reach their goals.
I agree. We need to continue to look at every point where
veterans either do not show up or they drop out in the program,
and reach out to them. Change policy where it is needed, if our
policy is driving decisions that close a veteran's case, we
need to make amendments. I am certainly not happy that we have
65,000 applicants approximately last year and only 10,000
approximately are coming out as rehabilitations. I think that
number should be much higher.
And what we are focused on with all of our staff is looking
not at just being tactical, which is easy for a counselor to do
when they have a large caseload and they are working very hard,
and veterans are in front of them, and they are meeting with
them each day. But also to be strategic. And we are doing that
on a national level as well to help them. There are pockets of
our current labor market where there are not enough qualified
workers to meet the demand. So we have to be looking into the
future, looking at where the demand for workers will be,
helping veterans understand those opportunities, and providing
training that will help them meet the future demand for
occupations. So that even if we continue to have an economic
downturn they have an advantage in this labor market.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank my colleague and I will yield back.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you each for being
here and for the work you do. As I said earlier, there is no
one in this room that is not committed to the care of veterans
and I appreciate that. I think we also all know that this is a
zero sum proposition and we will continuously be here. If one
veteran is left out we will not be happy. So I appreciate you
in that spirit and the folks who came before you of trying to
get to that. I just have a couple of short questions. How are
we doing on moving people to self-employment, as I asked the
previous panel? Do we have any numbers on that? Or do we have
folks coming out and getting, because I agree with the previous
panel that I think these veterans, both young and old, but the
young ones especially, are very well suited to self-employment
and entrepreneurial activities. So can anyone help me on that?
Ms. Fanning. Thank you, very gracious. First of all, as I
mentioned earlier we just did an industry innovation project to
focus on self-employment. So we are awarding three contracts
and they are all different. One will be a brick and mortar
business incubator. So veterans who want to start their own
businesses will actually have coaches on the spot. They will be
provided training. They may be experts, for example, in the
field of artistic welding, but not know how to manage their
books, not know how to manage employees, not understand how to
market their own----
Mr. Walz. Has there been anything like this prior to this?
Ms. Fanning. There has not. We have regulations and manual,
guidance, and we have done training on self-employment.
Mr. Walz. Do we know of any----
Ms. Fanning. But we have not provided this level of
innovation.
Mr. Walz. If I looked for a name and held it up and said
Private Jones is now running his own business, should I find he
or she?
Ms. Fanning. Yes.
Mr. Walz. There are people out there doing that?
Ms. Fanning. I just signed, at a certain level of cost the
self-employment plans come into the VR&E service for approval.
I just signed one for a veteran in San Diego about a week ago.
Mr. Walz. Great.
Ms. Fanning. And this individual veteran I believe was a
Guard or a Reservist and had owned his own pizzeria, actually a
series of them, before he was deployed. And he had a few
deployments in a row. He had decided that it was in his best
interest to go ahead and sell his business, he did keep some of
his equipment in storage, but he needed a lot more equipment
and assistance to start a new business.
Mr. Walz. And we are able to consolidate those resources if
it is SBA, or whatever it may be?
Ms. Fanning. Yes, and we do work with SBA. I wanted to
mention that. Bill Elmore from SBA was actually on our
selection committee in doing this self-employment industry
innovation.
The other two contracts will provide more online tools as
well as coaching, both virtual coaches and live coaches to
individuals. So that the training and resources that will be
online will be everything from am I the right, do I have the
right personality fit to be an entrepreneur? Is this right for
me? To online courses about how to run a business, how to
market a business, how----
Mr. Walz. Can we help them with Federal contracting? Do we
know of a veteran that has come through this program that has
ever received a Federal contract as a small business owner?
Ms. Fanning. I do not know. I can go back and research
that. I know that just in the last few months I have been
working with an individual from the Department of Defense. I
really have a lot of admiration and respect for this
individual. He is actually a brother of one of DoL's employees.
And he came to me, he works in the security department of DoD.
And he had an idea that if we added in our VetSuccess.gov Web
site a marker to indicate if a veteran has a top secret
security clearance that that would help----
Mr. Walz. Yes.
Ms. Fanning [continuing]. DoD contractors identify more
easily veterans who qualify for their jobs.
Mr. Walz. So we are starting to do it?
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
During fiscal year 2010, 157 veterans were obtaining VR&E
benefits with a vocational goal of completing and obtaining
self-employment. Two veterans completed their self-employment
plans and obtained a Federal contract. The individuals were
from Detroit, Michigan, and San Diego, California. Of the 157
veterans with a self-employment goal:
145 are still working on the steps in their rehab
plans
10 have completed their plans and been
rehabilitated;
1 has changed tracks and is receiving independent
living services; and
1 is in an interrupted status working on resolving
difficulties.
Ms. Fanning. So we are starting to do that. And we added
that field the same day, and his goal is as we know that
veterans are beginning to, the process of medically boarding
out, let DoD invest in them to provide this top secret security
clearance training.
Mr. Walz. That is great. Final question. What are the
metrics, or how do we measure contractor performance? And what
happens if they do not meet it? Do you ever let them go?
Ms. Fanning. We, well of course I have Ms. Cooper here with
me and I am sure she will be willing to help me. We approach
this from many different aspects and contracting is something
that we really have put a tremendous focus on since I have been
in my position.
First of all, the contracting officer has ultimate
authority over the contract, and maintaining, making sure that
the contractor is doing their job and taking appropriate
action. We also have COTRs, which are contracting officer
technical representatives. And those would be my field managers
around the country who are trained in the administration of the
contract. In addition, from the National Acquisition Strategy
contract that was referred to previously that we ended after
the first year because it was not working, we have added a
tremendous amount of structure to the new contracts, including
standardized templates for reports. We have built, with
Administrative and Loan Accounting Center, which is an arm of
our Office of Resource Management, an automated tool so that
vendors will provide their invoices in an automated system. We
will approve those invoices and pay them back through the
automated system. We put criteria in place for quality review
so that until the vendor receives acceptance of their
deliverable from this quality review they cannot invoice for a
product. So they have to show that they have met the
expectations of the contract. We have put in a lot of
additional very structured features. I can say it has been a
huge amount of work and I am very grateful to Ms. Cooper,
sitting to the left of me, for her staff's work as well as my
team. I have had a number of people devoted almost full-time
for the last over a year in working through this as well as
resolving issues with the old NAS----
Mr. Walz. But we are better at this? I can be assured if I
go back to my constituents and taxpayers and tell them, are you
watching our money as it goes into this program? The answer is
yes, we----
Ms. Fanning. Yes, the answer is yes.
Mr. Walz. Okay.
Ms. Fanning. Since I came into my position, I am, you know,
as I said I am a rehabilitation counselor by trade. My goal was
to really focus completely on VR&E. As a field person, I had a
lot of ideas of how I could make this program better. I think
it is a great program and I think it was very well designed by
Congress. But I think it could be better. It could be less
administratively burdensome for the counselors so that they can
spend more face time with the veterans.
So that was what I planned to do when I came in. I spent,
because of the NAS contract, a high percentage of my time
working on contracts that were not working. And so we have put
in a huge effort to make sure that we have very sound
contracts. And Ms. Cooper's staff has not only ramped up, she
has added a lot of additional staff, but we have really made
sure that we are meeting the legal and contractual requirements
for a sound contracting vehicle and a sound governance process.
Mr. Walz. Good.
Ms. Fanning. And I would defer to Ms. Cooper for any
additional----
Mr. Walz. My time is up, though. I yield back to the
Chairman if he has any followup, then, he will make sure he can
move it on. But thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the
same line of questioning with regard to reporting, my question
for Ms. Fanning is whether VR&E has too many Congressional
reports due? And if you think that that is the case, do you
recommend any for elimination?
Ms. Fanning. No, I do not believe we have too many
Congressional reports due. We had from Public Law 110-389, two
reports that were due. The first one was completed and
submitted, let me see I actually have the letter with me. It
was submitted--it is not dated. It was submitted back 270 days
after the report was initiated, which was what was required. Of
course, the longitudinal study will be an ongoing study. I
think that will be a big undertaking. And it will require a
great deal of my staff's work as well as the support of a
contractor. And we are hoping a research oriented group will be
the group that helps us with that. Otherwise, no, we come in
and we meet with the staff very frequently. I think we have a
very open rapport and I am always willing to come in and report
in any way asked.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. With respect, and you have mentioned
contractors, and Mr. Walz also asked questions with regard to
that. And I can understand that you are trying to standardize
some of the sort of data and paperwork and billing processes.
But I am wondering if you do anything to ensure that
contractors understand military culture and the needs of
veterans? How do you ensure prospectively, moving forward, that
they will? It is not just important to have cost efficient
contractors, but ones that are culturally sensitive to the
clientele that they are trying to serve.
Ms. Fanning. Yes, I agree with you. I know that Ms. Cooper
wants to comment. And so----
Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Cooper.
Ms. Fanning [continuing]. I will defer to her and then I
may add to her response.
Ms. Cooper. I think contracts are successful because of
good requirements, good communication, good selection, and good
oversight. I think in the requirements definition we make the
effort to convey exactly what we want. We had a very successful
pre-proposal conference here in Washington, DC, to have that
dialogue with interested vendors and communicate what we are
looking for. And we had an intensive source selection process
that is nearing completion. The emphasis not being on low price
but on past performance, and documented success, and technical
capability. So I think that gives us some assurance that we are
really moving forward with a quality product. And I am a firm
believer in trust is good, control is better, so we will have
good oversight procedures.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay, thank you. Ms. Fanning, going back to
the question I posed to you earlier about what are you doing to
make sure that veterans who are enrolling in the program
continue in the program, or to even make them aware. Because I
have heard several witnesses talk about the fact that, you
know, programs are great but if veterans are not aware that
they are out there, then there is a whole group that is not
being served. And you mentioned some of the outreach efforts
with respect to the Welcome Home ceremonies, and the like. I
know that in my district, local veterans and service
organizations make it a point to go to these types of events
and talk to new returning veterans about programs that have
assisted them, or that are available to them through the VA. Do
you do any work with those organizations to try to help
veterans reach out to other veterans? Because I often feel that
that is the most effective sort of recruitment tool for getting
returning veterans the services that they need, whether it is
dealing with PTSD, or vocational training.
Ms. Fanning. I agree with you. We work very closely with
Student Veterans of America. It is a group that has started up
on college campuses around the country. And they really are our
conduit in giving us that reality check of what new veterans
want, what the younger veterans want as opposed to perhaps
their Vietnam era colleagues. We work with schools that already
have veteran programs in place and augment them so that we can
provide general benefits assistance information on campuses and
provide medical and mental health referrals.
Often a veteran may be, and we have seen this already--the
program was stood up in June 2009 and we now have eight
locations--that a veteran may not be doing well in class and
really not understand why. And they sit down with a counselor
who can start to pick up on symptomology of post-traumatic
stress, and realize that they really need a referral and some
assistance. We are colocated at those VetSuccess on Campus
locations with an outreach coordinator from the VHA Vet Center
Program. And all Vet Center counselors are veterans. So that
adds that peer to peer----
Ms. Sanchez. But is that exclusive to college campuses?
Or----
Ms. Fanning. I am sorry.
Ms. Sanchez. Is that exclusive to college campuses? Or do
they go out to other events?
Ms. Fanning. Well those are examples. We go out to any
events that we can including as I mentioned earlier, Yellow
Ribbon, Welcome Home----
Ms. Sanchez. But I mean having veterans at those outreach
events, it is one thing to have bureaucrats or Administration
people there, but veteran outreach?
Ms. Fanning. In Voc Rehab over 40 percent of our employees
are veterans--we have just launched a program called Troops to
Counselors. And our goal by 2014 is that 60 percent of our
hires in 2014 for Voc Rehab counselors will be veterans. We
understand that it is more comfortable for veterans when
discussing combat experience and their personal issues to talk
to other veterans. We have very effective counselors who are
not veterans, but we want to meet that need. And we are
launching that as an initiative.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Thank you for your answer. My time
has expired.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, thank you very much. I guess I have one
follow-up question. I would like to just wrap this up here in
the next couple of minutes. Can you tell me, are the VR&E
participants, can they potentially receive VA comp, a VR&E
stipend, as well as Social Security disability payments, as
well as any other benefits?
Ms. Fanning. Yes, they can. And earlier when I referred to,
that some veterans may drop out because of increased medical
issues, some are actually found to have individually
unemployability. Which if you are not familiar with that means
that they have a disability rating of at least 40 percent with
other disabilities with a combined rating of 70 percent, or one
disability that is 60 percent or more. With these ratings, that
may apply and be found to be unemployable currently. And they
may be involved in Voc Rehab, because with assistance they can
become employable and ultimately enter a career.
What happens with some of those veterans, however, is that
then they can also qualify for Social Security disability
benefits if they receive benefits for individual
unemployability (IU). When a veteran is rated at 100 percent,
it opens up a myriad of other benefits. Now their spouse and
their children are eligible for educational benefits under
Chapter 35. They are eligible for medical benefits under
CHAMPVA. And so it can create a quagmire, or a disincentive,
for that veteran to let those benefits go and move on into
employment. It is a challenge that we face. And I have a
personal belief as a rehab counselor that it is best for an
individual to work when possible, to have that meaningful life
activity. For some veterans it may be that they cannot give up
the IU but they could work part-time, or work as a volunteer.
So we do the best we can to get them into the position that is
the right fit for them, that meets their needs and fits their
comfort level in terms of taking care of their family.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Well thank you very much. This has been
very helpful. I think all of us here on the Committee obviously
think this is a very important program----
Ms. Fanning. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman [continuing]. As well as I know you do as
well. But we want it to be effective. And obviously as Mr.
Braley expressed it, we have to answer to our constituents back
home and also to the general public in that this is an
important issue. I would just inform the Committee that the SBA
sponsors seven different entrepreneur boot camps for veterans
at universities. And at our May 7th hearing, we are going to
invite several of those and see what they are offering to folks
around the country.
So thank you to the panel and everybody who was here today
for your participation. This has been helpful and we look
forward to working together in the future. And at this time we
will adjourn if there are no other points to be made.
Okay, I ask unanimous consent for Members to have 5
legislative days for any additional remarks to be submitted to
the Committee. So anybody that was going to submit written
information we would ask that you do that within the next 5
days.
All right, with that this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good morning.
We are here today to review the VA budget for the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program as well as the Department's
progress in implementing a new national contract for counseling
services.
Let me begin by mentioning my concern about the average 130-150
caseload carried by each Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
counselor. To put it succinctly, that is way too high and that is why I
support the Committee's Views and Estimates to the Budget Committee
suggested a shift in funding to provide 50 more counseling staff.
Clearly, Members of this Committee support the concept of
vocational rehabilitation as a means to return to the workforce or be
rehabilitated as part of the Independent Living Program. However, the
Department has been somewhat cavalier in implementing the provisions in
section 334 of Public Law 110-389 that require VA to conduct a
longitudinal study of at least 20 years' duration of three cohorts of
VRE participants. It is my understanding that after completing an
initial contract to begin the study, VA has not funded the effort. I
find that unsatisfactory in light of the generous budgets given to VA
since passage of that law.
As a reminder, Congress included the longitudinal study because
little is known about the outcomes of those participating in VRE. For
example, the Veterans' Benefits Administration's FY 2010 Annual
Benefits Report includes such relevant information on VRE participants
as how many came from each military service. But totally lacking is any
information describing why of the nearly 70,000 applicants, 66,000 were
found to be eligible for VRE, and 41,000 were found to be entitled to
VRE benefits in FY 2010, there is no information on how many of those
41,000 continued in the program.
Further, there is no information on why thousands chose not to
participate. Without such data, how is Congress to determine what
changes to the law would decrease the dropout rate? There is an old
saying in business: If you don't measure it, you can't manage it, and
unfortunately, the Department's reluctance to fully implement P.L. 110-
389 does not improve the current shortage of data.
I would also note that the VBA report presents VRE contradictory
data. On several pages, VA indicates the just over 117,000 veterans
participate in VRE. However, on page 70 of the report, VA counts 60,522
veterans participating in a vocational training program. What are the
other 57,000 doing?
Finally, there is the issue of the rate of rehabilitation. VA
states 10,038 veterans were rehabilitated in FY 2010. I believe that,
given the significant portion attending long term education and
training as well as the nature of participants' disabilities that is a
reasonable number. However, it is not 76 percent of those in the VRE
program. I am told this has been an issue for years and a GAO report
stated that a proper accounting should produce a rate of about 18
percent. I encourage VA to rethink their accounting so that we are not
forced to provide them with a mandatory formula.
Again, I welcome all of our witnesses and look forward to the
distinguished Ranking Member's remarks so I will yield to him.
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce L. Braley,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
In past hearings, the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program has been referred to as one of
the VA's crown jewels, for the critical services and rehabilitation
programs it provides. This program has the potential of becoming one of
the best benefits programs under the VA.
Over the years, the VR&E program has grown and has become more
comprehensive through legislation to better fulfill its mission, such
as what Public Law 111-377 did as it aligned some of the education
benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. And most recently, it has been
going through a transformation as it's being branded as the VR&E
VetSuccess Program.
Today we will hear about VR&E's successes and failures, from the
VetSuccess on Campus to the National Acquisition Strategy. Since the
VR&E program provides assistance to service-disabled veterans seeking
to obtain employment and independent living, it is crucial that we
analyze their Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2012 and evaluate their
resources, operations, and performance measures.
The VR&E program is unique in that it requires personal interaction
with the veteran to deliver services. The Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselor (VRC) plays a vital role in this key interaction with
veterans. In the initial meeting between the VR&E counselor and the
veteran, a determination is made as to whether the veteran suffers from
an employment handicap. Eventually, the counselor develops a
personalized plan to address the veteran's rehabilitation and
employment needs. This is why it's extremely important that we assess
the current ratio of counselors to veterans to see if it is
appropriate.
I would also like to discuss how often veterans complete their
rehabilitation plan and how long it takes, as well as hear about what
may have deterred some veterans from completing their rehabilitation
plan. I have concerns over the current VR&E data gathering methods. In
FY 2009 there were 110,750 participants with 11,022 rehabilitated, and
in FY 2010 there were 117,130 participants with 10,038 rehabilitated.
What alarms me is that even while the number of participants has
increased, the number of rehabilitated veterans has decreased.
I also question whether the number of participants in the program
is misleading due to VA's definition of a participant. Currently, any
veteran that has applied to the program but has never actually realized
a rehabilitative plan is considered a participant. For example, if
after submitting an application the veteran decides this program is not
suitable for them, the application is still included in the
participation rate. In FY 2010 the number of actual participants in
some type of training program under VR&E was 60,522. The data gathering
method is inaccurate, and that bothers me because these statistics are
an essential tool to truly measuring the effectiveness of this program.
I hope that Director Ruth Fanning will address this concern for us
today.
The other initiative that I look forward to learning more about is
VR&E's National Acquisition Contract and how successfully VA will work
with contractors to avoid the same mistakes from nearly 2 years ago.
Providing the vocational rehabilitative services a veteran needs can be
challenging and avoiding problems with contractors who are unable to
meet contract services can prevent veterans from achieving their
rehabilitation plan.
We have noticed that the work at VR&E has been increasing. I hope
the VA can reassure us today that their FY 2012 budget request will
support the 15.5 percent increase in the VR&E workload.
Prepared Statement of Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW, Director of
Veterans Policy VetsFirst, a Program of United Spinal Association
Executive Summary
The Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment services are critical to helping eligible servicemembers and
veterans with service-connected disabilities receive the skills and
training necessary to help them reintegrate into their families and
communities. Specifically, VR&E services provide veterans with service-
connected disabilities the opportunity to return to or remain in the
workforce. The opportunity to participate in the workforce is critical
because employment provides people with both financial and social
benefits that contribute to an enhanced sense of one's life's purpose.
Improvement of VR&E services has been the focus of Committees and
task forces for a number of years. The 2004 VR&E Task Force made 110
recommendations for transforming VR&E. Many of these recommendations
have been implemented, including the development of five tracks for the
delivery of VR&E services and a refocusing on assisting veterans with
disabilities in returning to or remaining in the workforce.
VetsFirst believes that VR&E services are critical to veterans with
disabilities and their efforts to work and live independently. A
significant number of veterans, however, do not successfully complete
their rehabilitation plans.
Because the services provided by VR&E are critical to ensuring that
participants successfully complete and excel in their rehabilitation,
sufficient financing must be available for the VR&E program. For
example, eligible veterans should not be delayed or hindered due to
VR&E staffing limitations. In addition, veterans who are pursuing
``employment only'' tracks should be able to receive a monthly
subsistence allowance to ensure that they are not deterred due to
lacking the financial assistance that would allow them to fully benefit
from VR&E services.
Other barriers that challenge VR&E's mission to focus on the
employment of veterans with service-connected disabilities who have
``employment handicaps'' should also be eliminated. Specifically, the
12-year delimiting period to apply for VR&E services and the yearly cap
for independent living services must be removed. Furthermore, VR&E must
continue to increase collaboration with other agencies and
organizations that provide employment and rehabilitation assistance,
including State vocational rehabilitation agencies, to ensure that
veterans have access to a full range of services.
VetsFirst believes that addressing barriers to successful
completion of veterans' rehabilitation plans will allow more veterans
with service-connected disabilities to fully benefit from VR&E
services, actively engage in and be a part of their communities, and
regain financial stability.
__________
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding VetsFirst's views on the Department of Veterans Affairs'
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program budget and
operations.
VetsFirst represents the culmination of 60 years of service to
veterans and their families. United Spinal Association, through its
veterans service program, VetsFirst, maintains a nationwide network of
veterans service officers who provide representation for veterans,
their dependents and survivors in their pursuit of VA benefits and
health care before the VA and in the Federal courts. Today, United
Spinal Association is not only a VA-recognized national veterans
service organization, but is also a leader in advocacy for all people
with disabilities.
VA's VR&E services are critical to helping eligible servicemembers
and veterans with service-connected disabilities receive the skills and
training necessary to help them reintegrate into their families and
communities. Specifically, VR&E services provide veterans with service-
connected disabilities the opportunity to return to or remain in the
workforce. The opportunity to participate in the workforce is critical
because employment provides people with both financial and social
benefits that contribute to an enhanced sense of one's life's purpose.
As a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current
economic crisis, the number of veterans requesting and receiving VR&E
services will likely continue to increase. Sixty percent of the over
two million servicemembers who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have
left active duty and are now eligible for VA benefits, and
approximately 40 percent of these veterans have applied for
compensation related to a disability.\1\ Compounded by an unemployment
rate of almost 9 percent across all sectors, competition for many
employment opportunities is harder than ever. VR&E services provide
eligible veterans with the competitive edge to win precious employment
opportunities.
Veterans are eligible to receive VR&E services upon application if
they have an other than dishonorable discharge and a service-connected
disability rating from VA of at least 10 percent. Servicemembers who
apply for the services, are awaiting discharge from active duty, and
receive a memorandum rating of 20 percent or higher from VA are also
eligible for VR&E services. Applications must be made within 12 years
of the date of separation or upon notification by VA of an eligible
service-connected disability rating.
A determination that the veteran is eligible for VR&E services does
not automatically confer entitlement to the services. In order to be
entitled to receive VR&E services, veterans must have ``an employment
handicap.'' For veterans with service-connected disabilities of 20
percent or higher, the determination by a vocational rehabilitation
counselor of an employment handicap is sufficient to confer
eligibility. For veterans with service-connected disabilities of 10
percent, a vocational rehabilitation counselor must determine that ``a
serious employment handicap'' is present. Veterans who need services
and apply after the expiration of the 12-year delimiting period may
receive services if VR&E determines that the individual has a serious
employment handicap.
Once entitlement is established, vocational rehabilitation
counselors work with eligible veterans to begin the process of
developing a rehabilitation plan. VR&E delivers services through one of
five tracks: reemployment, rapid access to employment, self-employment,
employment through long-term services, and independent living. Although
there are five tracks through which a rehabilitation plan may be
delivered, it is possible for a combination of these tracks to be
pursued within an individual rehabilitation plan.
Improvement of VR&E services has been the focus of Committees and
task forces for a number of years. The 2004 VR&E Task Force made 110
recommendations for transforming VR&E. Many of these recommendations
have been implemented, including the development of the five tracks for
delivery of VR&E services and a refocusing on assisting veterans with
disabilities in returning to or remaining in the workforce. The purpose
of developing tracks was to ensure that VR&E services were meeting the
varying employment needs of veterans, including the immediacy of the
need.
VetsFirst believes that VR&E services are critical to veterans with
disabilities and their efforts to work and live independently. A
significant number of veterans, however, do not successfully complete
their rehabilitation plans.
Continued investment in VR&E is needed because it provides the
types of support that are critical to ensuring that participants
successfully complete and excel in their rehabilitation. To ensure that
veterans with disabilities are able to successfully complete
rehabilitation by obtaining and maintaining suitable employment or
through independent living, VR&E must receive sufficient resources.
Although the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have steadily increased the
number of servicemembers and veterans seeking services, VR&E resources
have not kept pace. For example, caseloads for counselors have remained
higher than VR&E's target of 1 to 125. A recent sampling showed
caseloads that ranged up to 1 to 160.\2\
Although VR&E has increased its workforce in recent years,
VetsFirst remains concerned that VR&E lacks a sufficient number of
employees. Specifically, VR&E must have a sufficient number of trained
employees who can ensure that eligible veterans are not delayed in
gaining entrance to services, and once allowed entry, can dedicate the
time needed to work with veterans in the development, implementation,
and completion of their rehabilitation plans. Ensuring that VR&E has
the staff needed to assist veterans in returning to the workforce is a
critical aspect of helping veterans with disabilities re-establish
their identity as productive citizens.
In addition to ensuring that VR&E has the resources needed to serve
veterans requiring rehabilitation services, VetsFirst believes that
veterans pursuing ``employment only'' tracks must have the financial
resources needed to complete their plans. Veterans who pursue
employment only tracks are not able to receive a monthly subsistence
allowance. Subsistence payments are only available to veterans who
pursue employment through long-term services, which includes
specialized training or education.
In a January 2009 report on VA's VR&E program, the GAO determined
that incentives must be realigned to ensure that the program is able to
fulfill its mission.\3\ GAO stated that, ``we are concerned that
without properly aligned incentives and supports, veterans who need
assistance finding immediate employment may not seek out VR&E services
and others may not choose the track that is best suited for them.'' \4\
Although the precise connection between subsistence and track selection
has not been determined, GAO's review of the track selections of nearly
24,000 veterans between January 2007 and early May 2008 showed that 80
percent pursued employment through long-term services.\5\
As previously stated, the employment through long-term services
track is the only track that provides a monthly subsistence allowance
for participants. VetsFirst believes that subsistence payments would be
beneficial for veterans with disabilities completing employment only
tracks and may encourage selection of these tracks when appropriate.
For veterans with disabilities who have families to support, the
ability to receive a monthly subsistence allowance while seeking
employment could be key to the veteran receiving the right type of
rehabilitation that will lead to a successful future.
In addition to resource barriers for VR&E and veteran recipients,
VetsFirst believes that there are other barriers to VR&E services that
must be eliminated. Because the mission of VR&E is to assist veterans
with disabilities related to their service requiring rehabilitation to
actively engage in the workforce and live independently, the arbitrary
timeline for eligibility and caps for independent living services must
be removed.
Currently, an eligible veteran must apply for VR&E services within
12 years of the date of separation or upon notification by VA of a
service-connected disability rating conferring eligibility. Services
that seek to return veterans to the workforce and allow them to live
independently should be heavily encouraged. Veterans who are initially
eligible may not need the services until after the 12-year delimiting
period has expired. Even though applications filed outside of the 12-
year delimiting period may be accepted if the applicant has a serious
employment handicap, potentially eligible veterans may believe that
they will not be able to receive assistance.
Similarly, VetsFirst believes that the cap for independent living
services should be eliminated. For veterans needing the skills and
resources to allow them to live independently, VR&E services are
critical. The independent living track is able to assist with skills
training, assistive technology, and linkages to community-based
services and supports. The number of veterans who can benefit from
these critical skills should not be limited.
The Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-275) increased the
number of veterans who may receive these services each fiscal year to
2700. Although it may appear that demand does not exceed the cap, its
mere existence requires careful management to ensure that the veterans
who most need to participate in the independent living program are able
to access the services when needed. The consequence may be delayed
entry for some eligible veterans until the next fiscal year. The
removal of the cap will ensure that eligible veterans who can benefit
from independent living services are not denied or delayed in receiving
those services.
VetsFirst also believes that the self-employment track should not
be targeted only to those who have severe disabilities or require
special accommodations. Self-employment and small business development
is a viable option for many veterans with disabilities. For instance,
small businesses owned by service disabled veterans have contracting
advantages with the Federal Government. Thus, the opportunity to
develop a small business must be a serious consideration for any
veteran seeking to be an entrepreneur.
For veterans who seek employment through a traditional work
environment, VetsFirst believes that VR&E must provide increased
followup to ensure that veterans have long-term employment success.
Currently, veterans with disabilities who maintain a suitable job for
60 days are considered to be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, 60 days may
not provide a sufficient period to determine whether a veteran will be
successful in his or her new job.
VetsFirst also believes that VR&E must focus on assisting veterans
in obtaining employment that is above entry-level when appropriate. In
addition to ensuring that veterans are placed at the right levels of
employment, VetsFirst believes that it is important to follow the
advancement of veterans to determine if VR&E services have assisted
them in obtaining growing careers. VR&E must not simply prepare a
veteran for today's workforce but anticipate the demands of tomorrow's
workplace.
To accomplish the goal of helping veterans obtain the right types
of employment, VR&E has worked to increase collaboration with other
agencies and organizations that provide employment and rehabilitation
assistance for veterans and people with disabilities, including State
vocational rehabilitation agencies. VetsFirst believes that these
collaborations are important because veterans with disabilities are
people with disabilities. Specifically, eligible veterans must be able
to benefit from both VR&E and State vocational rehabilitation services.
VetsFirst is pleased that VR&E is in the process of finalizing a
memorandum of understanding with the Rehabilitation Services
Administration. Formalizing the connection between VR&E and State
vocational rehabilitation agencies through the Rehabilitation Services
Administration is critical to ensuring that veterans with disabilities
receive the services they need to help them return to or remain in the
workforce. Without a strong partnership between VR&E and State
vocational rehabilitation agencies, veterans with disabilities who need
these services may be unable to successfully navigate these programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning VetsFirst's
views on VA's VR&E program budget and operations. We appreciate your
leadership on behalf of our Nation's veterans with disabilities and
their families and survivors. VetsFirst stands ready to work in
partnership to ensure that all veterans are able to reintegrate into
their communities and remain valued, contributing members of society. I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Veterans for Common Sense, VA: Consequences of Iraq and
Afghanistan Wars (2011), http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/032111bb1.pdf.
Veterans for Common Sense prepared these statistics based on
information from VA obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
\2\ The Independent Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs--
Fiscal Year 2012 39 (2011).
\3\ Government Accountability Office, ``VA Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment: Better Incentives, Workforce Planning,
and Performance Reporting Could Improve Program,'' GAO-09-34, January
2009, at 11.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of John L. Wilson,
Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Executive Summary
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) service
projects a 10 percent increase in its workload for fiscal year (FY)
2012 over 2011, a workload of 119,905 veterans. These numbers continued
to increase from FY 2011's workload of an estimated 109,005. Additional
funding to support this growth is essential.
General Accounting Office (GAO) 2009 study assessed
VR&E staff's ability to meet its core mission and found:
54 percent of all 57 regional offices reported
fewer counselors than needed;
40 percent reported fewer employment coordinators
than needed; and
90 percent reported caseloads more complex for
veterans of the current conflicts.
VR&E current caseload target is one counselor for every
125 veterans, but feedback from the field found workload ranging as
high as one to 160.
VR&E needs at least 100 new staff counselors to reduce
current counselor-to-client workload and 50 additional full-time
employees (FTE) for management and oversight of contract counselors and
rehabilitation and employment service providers.
VR&E needs 10 additional FTE to expand the Veteran
Success on Campus program.
Congress should continue to monitor the results of
ongoing work measurement/skills studies and provide funding for any
identified staffing needs and targeted training in core competencies.
Congress should fund the longitudinal study it mandated
in Public Law 110-389, which will provide greater understanding of the
needs of VR&E program participants and accuracy of reporting of program
outcomes.
To achieve better outcomes, VR&E service along with
other VA employment, education and business assistance programs
designed to enhance economic security, should be reorganized into a
single new administration inside Department, on par with the Veterans
Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration and National
Cemetery Administration.
__________
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) to
testify at this important hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity to address the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Service's fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget, its operations and ways to
improve its performance. DAV is an organization of 1.2 million service-
disabled veterans, and we devote our energies to rebuilding the lives
of disabled veterans and their families and survivors.
Congress appropriates funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs
so it can provide assistance to veterans seeking employment through
VR&E services, VetSuccess program. This program assists veterans with
service-connected disabilities in preparing for, finding and keeping
jobs suitable to their skill sets. For veterans with severe service-
connected disabilities that impact their ability to immediately work,
other services are available to help them live as independently as
possible.
Veterans are eligible for VR&E's VetSuccess program if they have an
other than dishonorable discharge as well as a service-connected
disability rating of at least 10 percent, or a memorandum rating of 20
percent or more from the VA. The VetSuccess program is also open to
active duty military who expect they will be separated with an
honorable discharge and who also have a memorandum rating of 20 percent
or more from the VA. Those who meet these criteria and apply for the
program may receive a comprehensive evaluation that determines their
employment interests, skills and abilities. Once the evaluation is
complete, vocational counseling and rehabilitation planning towards
employment service assistance may be provided. These employment
services include job training, job-seeking skills, resume development,
and other types of work readiness assistance. They may be given the
opportunity to enhance existing skills sets through on-the-job-training
(OJT), apprenticeships, and non-paid work experiences as well as post-
secondary training at a college, vocational, technical or business
school. During this process, participants may also receive supportive
rehabilitation services such as case management, counseling, and even
medical referrals.
Those with severe disabilities that are unable to work may qualify
for the Independent Living program which allows eligible veterans to
live independently. They may be provided assistive technology to help
them adapt to their circumstances, specialized medical, health, or
rehabilitation services, assistance in addressing personal or family
adjustment issues and be put in contact with support services within
their community.
The basic period of eligibility for VetSuccess cannot currently
exceed 12 years from either the date of separation from active duty, or
the date the veteran was notified by the VA of their service-connected
disability rating. This 12-year eligibility period can only be extended
if a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) determines that a
veteran has a serious employment handicap.
The extended nature of the current overseas conflicts, combined
with the slow recovery of the economy, have resulted in a projected 10
percent increase in VR&E's workload. In FY 2012, the VA anticipates
119,905 program participants to apply for these benefits as regular
military personnel, guardsmen, and reservists return from the global
war on terrorism and transition to veteran status. These numbers
continued to increase from FY 2011's workload of an estimated 109,005.
Additional funding to support this growth is essential. The President
has requested 1,286 direct FTE to provide these critical services, an
increase of 129 above the FY 2011 FTE level.
DAV and our partners from The Independent Budget (IB) referenced in
our FY 2012 document a General Accounting Office (GAO) 2009 study that
assessed VR&E staff's ability to meet its core mission.\1\ GAO found:
54 percent of all 57 regional offices reported fewer
counselors than needed;
40 percent reported fewer employment coordinators than
needed; and
90 percent reported caseloads more complex for veterans
from the current conflicts.
Feedback that DAV received from the field found that while VR&E has
a current caseload target of one counselor to every 125 veterans, the
actual workload ranged as high as one to every 160 veterans. The IB
recommended 100 new staff counselors and 50 additional FTE for
management and oversight of contract counselors and rehabilitation and
employment service providers. We concur with the Committee's Views and
Estimates for FY 2012
that VR&E counselors' current caseload is too high.
While addressing staffing, we must also highlight ``Veteran Success
on Campus,'' a VA pilot program begun at the University of Southern
Florida, which placed a vocational rehabilitation counselor and a
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) outreach coordinator on the campus
to assist veterans in vocational rehabilitation as well as veterans
enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill or other VA educational programs.
Given the program's success, The Independent Budget Veterans Service
Officers (IBVSOs) supported its expansion to Cleveland State
University, Ohio and San Diego State College, California in FY 2011. In
FY 2012, the plan is to expand the program further to Rhode Island
Community College, Texas A&M, Arizona State University in Tempe, and
Salt Lake City Community College. VR&E requested at least 10 full-time
employees in FY 2012 to manage this expanding campus program. The
IBVSOs support this request.
We were pleased with the Committee's Views and Estimates for FY
2012 which stated, ``. . . given the caseload increase of roughly
10,000, the FTE increase will do little to reduce the average caseload
from the current 135 to 150 veterans per counselor.'' You recommended a
reallocation of $5.5 million from the General Administration account to
support 50 additional VR&E counselors, above the increase of 129 called
for by the President, to both decrease the length of time needed to
begin receiving services and increase the quality of those services.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 307, which calls for
increased staffing levels in VR&E, and the IB, we support the
Committee's Views and Estimates for FY 2012 call for an increase in
VR&E staff to 179 FTE.
The next area to address is the operation of the VR&E service and
ways it could be improved. Congress should continue to monitor the
results of VR&E's ongoing work measurement and skills study begun in
February 2010 through its Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
initiative. The BPR initiative is focused on streamlining processes and
paperwork, redefining roles and metrics as well as leveraging
technology to improve delivery of services. Once completed, we
encourage Congress to provide the necessary funding for any identified
staffing needs and targeted training in core competencies as well as
possible legislative remedies.
An accurate determination of the effectiveness of the VR&E program
is an essential element in decisions regarding delivery of services,
staff size, level of expertise, ongoing staff training requirements,
optimum service delivery mechanisms to address the needs of program
participants, the accuracy of reporting outcomes and other areas for
improvement. The opportunity to obtain information to address these
concerns can be obtained from a longitudinal study, a correlational
research study that involves repeated observations of the same items
over long periods of time, often decades. Longitudinal studies track
the same people, and therefore the differences observed in those people
are less likely to be the result of cultural differences across
generations. Congress mandated such a study with the passage of the
Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, section
334, on October 10, 2008. VA was required to conduct a longitudinal
study of its vocational rehabilitation programs, tracking individuals
over a 20-year period that began participating in a vocational
rehabilitation program during fiscal years 2010, 2012, and 2014. Annual
reports are due to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and House of Representatives on July 1 of each year, with the first one
due this year. The focus of the study is to assess the long-term
outcomes of the individuals participating in the vocational
rehabilitation programs.
We agree with Congress that such a study is certainly needed as it
has the great potential to provide fresh insights into the complex
issue of delivery of VR&E services to our Nation's veterans. We
therefore urge Congress to appropriate the necessary funds to support
such a study.
Delivery of services will be further enhanced with the planned
stationing of VR&E counselors at four of the largest Integrated
Disability Evaluation System (IDES) sites. The IDES mission is to
provide a Department of Defense (DoD) and VA IDES that is seamless,
transparent, and administered jointly by both Departments, using one
disability rating system, thus streamlining the process for the
military personnel transitioning from the DoD to the VA. IDES features
a single set of disability medical examinations to determine both
fitness and disability, and a single set of disability ratings provided
by VA. The IDES is the result of a recommendation of the President's
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors that ``DoD
and VA should create a single, comprehensive, standardized medical
examination that the DoD administers. It would serve DoD's purpose of
determining fitness and VA's of determining initial disability level.''
\2\
When a military member's medical conditions cause them to be put on
a medical profile that makes them no longer deployable and curtails
their ability to effectively carry out the duties of their rank and
military specialty, they will be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB). If the MEB determines that the member has a medical
condition which is incompatible with continued military service, they
are referred to the IDES. Then, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB) determines if the military member is fit for continued duty.
Through a review of medical documentation, a commander's statement and
information submitted by the military member, a three-member board from
the member's military Service branch determines if they can continue in
the service. If the IPEB decides the member can continue, they are
designated ``fit'' and returned to duty. If not, they are found
``unfit.''
If found unfit, the records are sent to the Veterans Benefit
Administration (VBA) to receive a disability rating. After the VBA
reviews the records and determines the disability rating, the record is
passed back to the IPEB, which uses the VA's cumulative rating to
determine the overall percentage of disability for the unfit conditions
causing the member to be separated from the military. There are three
types of medical separations the member can receive: separated without
severance pay, separated with severance pay, or retired. Once the
military member is informed of the IPEB's decision, they can either
accept the findings or appeal the decision to a Formal Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB). The FPEB reviews all the information that the
IPEB had, with the added feature of the member being able to personally
appear before the FPEB and offer additional evidence. The FPEB holds a
hearing, weighs the prior evidence, the member's testimony and any new
evidence presented, and renders its recommendation. Just as with the
IPEB, there are three types of medical separations the member can
receive: separated without severance pay, separated with severance pay,
or retired. Those who receive a disability rating of 20 percent or less
are separated with or without severance pay. Those who receive a
disability rating of 30 percent or more are either placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List and reevaluated at least every 18
months with a final disability rating decision rendered at the 5-year
point, or they are permanently retired from military service.
As currently planned, when the military member is being processed
through one of the four IDES sites staffed with VR&E counselors, they
will be given a mandatory appointment to meet with a VRC and will be
assisted in developing vocational goals as part of a vocational
rehabilitation plan to assist them in making a successful transition
from the military. These services will range from a comprehensive
rehabilitation evaluation to determine abilities, skills, and interests
for employment purposes to support services to identify and maintain
employment. By physically placing VRCs at the largest IDES locations,
benefits delivery timeliness may be improved, early intervention will
help combat homelessness as well as poverty caused by under-employment.
While we are pleased with the progress of the IDES program to date
and VR&E's plans to expand delivery of services, we are concerned about
another aspect of the program; servicemembers participating in IDES not
having ready access to representation from a veterans service
organization. As a result, most of the separating military members are
relying instead on the advisory services of military counsel. Because
most servicemembers undergoing this process are unaware of what is
clearly a complex disability adjudication process which can render
decisions with ramifications on access to VA benefits for years
afterward, we believe their interests would best be served if they are
represented by a national service officer of a chartered veterans
service organization. DAV and the other coauthors of the IB therefore
urge the DoD and VA to address this observed gap in IDES and expand
access to our services.
Another area where access to VR&E services could be enhanced would
be with the elimination of the current 12-year eligibility period. In
accordance with DAV Resolution No. 303, we recommend leaving the date
to apply for this benefit open-ended. Despite efforts to keep veterans
informed of their benefits, not all disabled veterans are aware of
their possible entitlements to VR&E programs at the time they are
awarded service-connection for disabilities until life's circumstances
otherwise intervene. Many veterans do not necessarily see themselves as
needing vocational rehabilitation until later in life, which is often
after the current 12-year rule excludes them from the benefit they need
and to which they would otherwise have been entitled. Since VA puts no
time limit on when a veteran may claim his or her disability, we assert
that there should be no time limit for access to VR&E benefits either.
Open-ended eligibility could also help reduce the claims workload as
applicants would not have to submit new claims or reopen old ones in
hopes of being granted a new service-connection that would once again
make them eligible for VR&E benefits.
The VR&E Service focuses on providing individualized services to
veterans with service-connected disabilities in an effort to assist
them in achieving functional independence in daily activities, becoming
employable, and obtaining and maintaining suitable, quality employment.
VR&E has focused more on the vocational rehabilitation aspect and less
on employment. For example, VR&E only conducts a 60-day follow-up on
individuals recently employed as a measure to determine if they are
``fully rehabilitated.'' Even more disturbing is the fact that if a
veteran discontinues the use of VR&E services, regardless of the
reasoning, VR&E reports it as a successful case of ``full
rehabilitation.'' It is imperative that programs designed to prepare
veterans for employment, both vocational rehabilitation and education
programs, be better integrated with programs designed to secure
veterans' employment.
We also recommend, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 307, that
the current 60 days of employment as the standard for a veteran to be
considered fully employed is insufficient. Typically, new employers
require much longer periods of probationary employment. In the Federal
sector, the probationary employment period can be for up to 1 year. We
therefore recommend VR&E provide placement follow-up with employers for
at least 6 months.
VA also needs to continue improving its coordination with non-VA
vocational programs to ensure that veterans are receiving the full
array of benefits and services to which they are entitled in a timely
and effective manner. Under the VA Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2011, the
VA acknowledged that it plans to continue the utilization of non-VA
providers to supplement and complement services provided by VR&E staff.
Many State vocational rehabilitation agencies have memoranda of
understanding with their State departments of veterans' services to
coordinate services for veterans with disabilities, and some State
agencies have identified counselors with military backgrounds to serve
as liaisons with VA and veterans' groups. Moreover, the VA is
increasingly engaged with State vocational rehabilitation agencies in
outreach to the business community to promote veterans with
disabilities as a valuable talent pool. In addition, numerous nonprofit
vocational rehabilitation providers have served veterans
with disabilities for many years in partnership with VA.
These partnerships, however, create challenges that VA needs to
address. Whereas qualified providers can partner easily with most State
vocational rehabilitation agencies, VA's national acquisition strategy
is viewed as overly cumbersome by private providers seeking to contract
with VR&E. As a result, private non-VA providers that could address
some of the demand by disabled veterans for employment assistance are
shut out by complicated contracting rules. At the same time, State
vocational rehabilitation agency staff may not always be familiar with
veteran-specific disability issues related to traumatic brain injury,
post-traumatic stress disorder, and other combat-related injuries and
conditions. In addition, because of funding and staffing shortages
experienced by State vocational rehabilitation agencies, disabled
veterans seeking vocational rehabilitation services could bounce
between VA's VR&E and State vocational rehabilitation agencies without
being properly served.
We recommend that VR&E Service improve its national acquisition
strategy to make it easier for qualified vocational rehabilitation
providers to offer services to disabled veterans. Further, VA should
offer joint training to their staffs as well as State vocational
rehabilitation partners on traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and other veteran-specific disability issues to
improve cross-agency coordination. VR&E should continue to enhance
coordination with State vocational rehabilitation programs, One-Stop
Career Centers, and private sector vocational rehabilitation programs.
The VR&E Service should also improve case management techniques and use
state-of-the-art information technology to track the progress of
veterans served outside VR&E.
We also know that veterans with dependents are the second largest
group that looks to VR&E for assistance. They also tend to use VR&E's
employment services track more than disabled veterans who do not have
dependents. While pursuing vocational rehabilitation may be a wish, the
need for immediate employment to meet the demands of life's financial
obligations in cases where VA's assistance is inadequate. For example,
those veterans who do not qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill do not have
the option of using the more generous housing stipend over the
vocational rehabilitation's living stipend. We therefore recommend
veterans in this circumstance be provided child care vouchers or
stipends so long-term education or vocational rehabilitation will no
longer be out of reach. We also recommend a monthly stipend for those
participating in the employment track of VR&E programs.
The Independent Living program, as noted earlier, allows eligible
veterans to live independently by providing assistive technology to
help them adapt to their circumstances, specialized medical, health, or
rehabilitation services, assistance in addressing personal or family
adjustment issues and be put in contact with support services within
their community. Unfortunately, the program participation is capped and
program participation cannot exceed 30 months. The current cap is at
2,700 as a result of Public Law 111-275, the Veterans Benefits Act of
2010. The problem is, as VR&E approaches the ceiling each year, it must
consequently slow delivery of services until the next fiscal year. We
therefore recommend that Congress eliminate the 30-month maximum and
the cap on program participation.
The last area I wish to address has to do with the delivery of
services, not just by VR&E service, but all VA programs designed to
enhance the economic security of veterans, specifically those focused
on employment, education, and business assistance. In accordance with
DAV Resolution 306 and the recommendation of the FY 2012 IB, we call
for the reorganization of all such programs within a single new
Administration inside the Department, commensurate with VHA, VBA, and
the National Cemetery Administration.
While all Americans face challenges during economic downtimes,
veterans have been particularly hard hit. Statistics clearly illustrate
the struggle that veterans face while transitioning from military
service to civilian life. Unemployment statistics for February 2011
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the overall unemployment
rate for all veterans of 9.2 percent.\3\ For veterans from the Iraq and
Afghanistan conflicts, the unemployment rate is 12.5 percent.\4\ While
there is some improvement from March 2010, when the unemployment rate
was 14.7 percent for this group, it is still higher than the national
average. Moreover, younger veterans, those ages 18-24, are at times
twice as likely to be unemployed as their civilian counterparts.
On any given night it is estimated there are 79,000 homeless
veterans. Even though this number has decreased in recent years, it is
still too high. Congress approved a historic new GI Bill for Post-9/11
veterans, but VA struggled to implement this program and deliver this
benefit. Vocational rehabilitation programs for disabled veterans have
failed to achieve adequate success rates despite improvements in recent
years. VA programs designed to provide assistance to veteran
entrepreneurs have fallen short of expectations, in part due to the
lack of funding and proper organization.
In order to achieve better outcomes for veterans, DAV and our
partners in the IB believe that VA programs that effect veterans'
economic status should be housed under a new and separate
administration, the Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration
(VEOA). The VEOA would be headed by an Under Secretary for Veterans
Economic Opportunity who would administer all VA programs of economic
opportunity assistance to veterans and their dependents and survivors.
This new administration would be responsible for and composed of the
following existing programs: VR&E Service; Education Service (GI Bill);
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization; Homeless
Veterans Program Office; and Home Loan Guaranty.
As veterans' programs have become more complex over the years, the
dispersed nature of these programs has challenged VA's senior
management to effectively monitor the delivery of services for each
program. Establishing a fourth administration within VA dedicated to
creating economic opportunities for veterans would increase the
visibility and accountability of all employment-related programs and
would allow an overburdened VBA to focus on the monumental task of
reforming the disability compensation claims processing system.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Government Accountability Office, VA Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment: Better Incentives, Workforce Planning, and Performance
Reporting Could Improve Program, GAO-09-34, January 26, 2009, 6.
\2\
The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warri
ors (July 2007), 7.
\3\ Table A-5. Employment status of civilians of the civilian
population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and
sex, not seasonally adjusted, March 4, 2011, http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/empsit.t05.htm
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Richard C. Daley,
Association Legislation Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify concerning the issue of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program (VR&E). The Global War on Terror has produced a
large number of men and women that have honorably served the country
and have returned to civilian life with one or more physical and or
psychological wounds that create barriers to entry, or reentry into the
civilian workforce. PVA would like to thank Congress and this
Subcommittee for all the support they have provided disabled veterans
and all veterans to make this transition successfully.
The purpose of the VR&E program, as authorized under Chapter 31 of
title 38 U.S.C., is to provide comprehensive services to address the
employment barriers of service-connected disabled veterans in an effort
to achieve maximum independence in daily living, and to obtain and
maintain gainful employment. Ultimately, a goal of the VR&E program is
to provide services to severely disabled veterans that will help them
achieve the highest quality of life possible.
Currently, to be eligible for VR&E, a veteran must have been
discharged under circumstances other than dishonorable; have a
disability rating or 20 percent or more that was incurred in, or
aggravated by their service; and be in need of vocational
rehabilitation in an effort to overcome employment barriers caused by
such service-connected disability. VR&E provides for 48 months of
entitlement to use the program and, unfortunately veterans only have 12
years from the date of the initial VA disability rating notification to
utilize the program, with an exception for those with a serious
employment disability.
PVA and the other co-authors of the The Independent Budget,
Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Veterans of Foreign Wars
strongly believe that this 12-year eligibility period should be
eliminated and all veterans with employment impediments should qualify
for VR&E services. Many veterans are not aware of the VA's VR&E program
and how it can be used to improve veterans' lives. Often veterans learn
of the VR&E services while talking to a VSO service officer or a
service organization years after their discharge and they have little
time remaining to utilize the program.
After severe injuries such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) a veteran requires years to complete
rehabilitation and make the adjustment to basic activities of daily
living. During this time he or she is focused on recovery and the
activity of returning to work is not a top priority for the veteran.
Nevertheless, the veteran's eligibility is elapsing.
Additionally, as many disabled veterans age, the service-connected
disability may impose further restrictions on a veteran preventing him
or her from continuing their civilian work activities. The veteran may
still have the economic need and the desire to work for another 10 or
20 years. With the 12-year limitation, many service-connected disabled
veterans are disqualified and not able to utilize the VR&E services
they have earned through the VA.
During the process of testing, evaluating, and preparing
rehabilitation plans for qualifying veterans, the VR&E program often
uses contracted suppliers. The VA claims that this is the only possible
option available to address the needs of veterans in remote geographic
areas and provide some of the support functions such as administrating
testing procedures. PVA questions the use of contractors to perform the
individual ``one-on-one'' work with veterans. We are concerned that
this ``one-on-one'' work with the veteran is being contracted out in
order for the trained VA counselor to have time to complete required VA
paper work. If this in fact is true, then this is certainly not the
best use of the experienced VA counselors' expertise.
Another issue of concern for PVA is uniformity of the VR&E program
regulations. PVA has received reports that different VA offices
interpret the regulations pertaining to the VR&E program differently.
This fosters inconsistent case management and a lack of accountability.
In a previous hearing, PVA explained the story of one of our members
with a recent spinal cord injury that was participating in the VR&E
program. The program required the veteran to attend regular scheduled
sessions and the veteran had problems with punctual attendance for the
prescribed program at a VA facility. This was due to a physical and
medical condition directly related to his injury. The veteran was
expelled from the program, against the veteran's wishes, because of his
late arrivals. PVA believes this was a strict interpretation of the
regulation for participation in the program. The veteran was seriously
disabled and still has the ambition and desire to work. The VA should
work with the veteran, not against the veteran.
Lastly, another issue brought to our attention by our service
officers is the inability to quickly provide some basic services to
those veterans that have been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS), which is a terminal condition. In recent years the VA
has required the rating system to expedite these claims since an ALS
diagnosed veteran has limited time (two to five years) to live. This
has resulted in the ALS veteran receiving his or her usual compensation
check as quickly as possible. In advanced stages of ALS, the veteran
will rely on a wheelchair for mobility and most likely choose to spend
the remaining months at home with family, rather than in a nursing
facility or VA hospital. The procedure to modify the bathroom door for
the wheelchair and other minor modifications now requires a veteran to
submit the application for a Specially Adaptive Housing (SAH) grant,
wait for approval of the application and submit the technical drawing
for the construction modifications. The VA will then approve the plan
or make recommendations for the modification. If recommendations are
needed, the veteran resubmits the plan, and waits for the VA to approve
the plan again. The VA also goes to the home to inspect the proposed
site modification and at that time they may require additional plans
for more modifications such as the addition of a second accessible rear
entrance for emergency exit. This requires another application and
another set of drawings and another approval procedure. The entire
process could require 6 to 12 months.
The veteran's only request was to modify the bathroom door by
enlarging it 2 inches to accommodate the wheelchair. Any other mobility
inconveniences would be tolerated in order to allow the veteran to
remain in the home during the last months of life. Unfortunately as the
veteran waits for the system to complete the requirements of the VA
procedures, it is not unusual for the veteran to die before the home is
modified to the VA standards.
For years the VA VR&E program has used funds from the Independent
Living (IL) program to accommodate the ALS diagnosed veteran. The
veteran and IL Counselor would select a previously approved contractor
who follows the VA guidelines for bathroom modifications. The work is
completed in weeks and the contractor is paid with IL funds.
In the last year, the VA has changed this procedure and will not
allow the IL program to pay for modifications and requires the
Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant through the VA prosthetics
program to accommodate the necessary modifications. This in fact, may
be the new method to administer and account for these funds, but it is
not working for the dying ALS veteran. PVA strongly encourages Congress
and the VA to change its current policy involving veterans with ALS so
that these claims are expedited to ensure veterans receive all
necessary support during these last months of life.
VR&E should be more flexible with providing programs for veterans.
The goal should be employment whenever possible, not just completing a
prescribed course. This should include educational programs and non-
degree employment training programs. Moreover, the VA should ensure
that the training options offered through VR&E are compatible with the
current 21st Century workplace.
The VA's VR&E program provides invaluable services to America's
veterans. From technical and professional training to self-esteem and a
sense of financial independence. It is for this reason the VR&E
services should fully meet the needs of veterans who have made the
ultimate sacrifice and incurred a service-connected disability.
PVA would like to thank this Subcommittee again for their
constructive input on the programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs that help improve the lives of veterans. That concludes my
testimony. I would be happy to answer questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of John M. McWilliam,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Management,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Executive Summary
The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) proudly serves
veterans and transitioning servicemembers through four major programs
that are an integral part of Secretary Solis's vision of ``Good Jobs
for Everyone.''
The Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG), which provide
Federal funds to support State-employed Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVERS) and Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
Specialists (DVOPs);
The Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops
(TAP);
The Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP); and
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA).
Much of VETS' interaction with the VR&E program is through the
Workforce Investment System and the outstationing of Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) at Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) offices.
Under a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the Department of
Labor (DoL) and VA a Joint Working Group (JWG) has been working to
improve the quality of employment services and job placements for
veterans enrolled in VR&E programs. The JWG has:
Facilitated a pilot program to identify and catalogue
best practices from existing sites. This 1-year pilot involved eight
locations nationwide.
Developed roles and responsibilities for the major
agencies involved in the VR&E process.
Identified the major issues to providing shared data
between the VA and DoL.
Identified the joint training requirements for both DoL/
VETS and VR&E employees involved in employment assistance at the VR&E
locations.
Developed a technical assistance guidance document that
specified the roles and responsibilities and reporting requirements for
both DoL/VETS and VR&E staff.
VETS has designated the outstationed DVOP position at the VR&E
offices as an Intensive Service Coordinator (ISC). The ISC provides
employment information to VR&E participants during their rehabilitation
program. In 2009 VETS issued guidance that each State would include an
ISC at each VR&E Regional Office. All States subsequently incorporated
the ISC into their FY 2010 State plans.
In FY 2010, 4,989 disabled veterans who completed VR&E were
referred to the State Workforce Agencies for intensive employment
services. Of these, 1,764 were placed into employment for a placement
rate of 35 percent. This was at an average annual wage of $37,800.
During the first quarter of FY 2011, 1,323 referrals were made to the
State Workforce Agencies.
__________
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness before the
Subcommittee and speak to you on the Department's interagency
cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E), and our joint efforts
to serve our Nation's disabled veterans in need of VR&E services that
lead to employment.
The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) proudly serves
veterans and transitioning servicemembers by providing resources and
expertise to assist and prepare them to obtain meaningful careers,
maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment
rights. We do that through four major programs that are an integral
part of Secretary Solis's vision of ``Good Jobs for Everyone.''
The Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG), which provide
Federal funds to support State-employed Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVERS) and Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
Specialists (DVOPs);
The Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops
(TAP);
The Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP); and
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA).
Much of VETS' interaction with the VR&E program is through the
Workforce Investment System and the outstationing of Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) at VR&E offices. Accordingly, VETS
continues to work in partnership with its JVSG recipients on behalf of
VR&E job-ready veterans who are referred to and registered with State
Workforce Agencies (SWA) for intensive employment services.
The Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) is a State grant
program started in 1977 and authorized by Section 4103(A) of Title 38,
United States Code. DVOP specialists provide intensive employment
assistance to meet the employment needs of eligible Veterans. DVOP
specialists provide intensive services at the One-Stop Career Centers
and at the VR&E offices. They also provide recovery and employment
assistance to wounded and injured servicemembers receiving care at
Department of Defense military treatment facilities and Warrior
Transition Units through the Recovery & Employment Assistance Lifelines
(REALifelines) program, working closely with the VR&E rehabilitation
counselors also at these facilities. DVOPs focus their services to
disabled veterans. DVOPs also provide services through the Homeless
Veterans' Reintegration Program, Veterans' Workforce Investment
Program, Transition Assistance Program, and Incarcerated Veterans'
Transition Program.
Background of Collaboration
In 2005, senior leadership from VETS and VR&E, including the then
Assistant Secretary for VETS and Director for VR&E, met with the
Subcommittee staff to discuss how the two agencies could better
collaborate. As a result of that meeting, a new Memorandum of Agreement
(MoA) between the Department of Labor (DoL) and VA was executed and
three work groups were established. These three work groups
subsequently were combined into a Joint Working Group (JWG).
The VA/DOL Joint Working Group (JWG)
The goal of the JWG is to improve the quality of employment
services and job placements for veterans enrolled in VR&E programs.
DoL and VA leadership have taken an active role with the JWG. I
have taken a personal interest in this issue and was involved in the
three work groups and in the creation of the JWG. I take this
cooperative effort very seriously.
The three work groups were established to execute the requirements
of the MoA. VETS' participants have included one individual from each
of our six regions and at least three individuals from the national
office. The three work groups dealt with the following subjects:
Performance Measures for Assessment of Partnership
Program Results;
Curriculum Design; and
Joint Data Collection, Analysis, and Reports.
These groups made significant accomplishments; they:
Facilitated a pilot program to identify and catalogue
best practices from existing sites. This 1-year pilot involved eight
locations nationwide.
Developed roles and responsibilities for the major
agencies involved in the VR&E process.
Identified the major issues to providing shared data
between the VA and DoL.
Identified the joint training requirements for both DoL/
VETS and VR&E employees involved in employment assistance at the VR&E
locations.
Developed a technical assistance guidance document that
specified the roles and responsibilities and reporting requirements for
both DoL/VETS and VR&E staff.
Both DoL and the VA subsequently published this technical
assistance guidance document in December 2008.
As a result of the initiative to clearly identify roles and
responsibilities, we have designated the outstationed DVOP position at
the VR&E offices as an Intensive Service Coordinator (ISC). This
designation, with new duty requirements, clearly differentiates the
work required at VR&E sites from the roles of the DVOP at a One Stop
Career Center. The ISC provides employment information to VR&E
participants during their rehabilitation program, and refers them at
the end of the program to DVOPs at One Stop Career Centers. The DVOPs
at One Stop Career Centers then provide intensive services to referred
participants to assist them in obtaining employment.
Besides working with Job-Ready veterans, the JWG also planned to
involve DVOPs at the front end of VR&E process to help veterans
determine local labor market information. This interaction was intended
to facilitate the rehabilitation planning process by providing the
veteran and the VR&E counselor with current data on salary and job
outlook as well as increasing understanding of working conditions for
specific occupations.
In December 2008, the end of the pilot program was marked by a
webcast to all VR&E locations that initiated the implementation phase
of this project.
In support of the technical assistance guidance, in 2009 VETS
issued guidance that each State's JVSG Five Year Strategic Plan (FY
2010-2015) would include the outstationing of a DVOP specialist at each
VR&E Regional Office. All States subsequently incorporated the ISC into
their FY 2010 State plans.
Following this first year of implementation in 2010, VA and DoL
will evaluate the program under the new guidance, and determine if
changes are required to either the MoA or the technical assistance
guidance.
Current Status of DOL Support to the VR&E Program
VETS continues to work to ensure that a DVOP is outstationed at
each of the 57 VR&E Regional Offices. In some instances, the States,
due to staffing allowances or traditional roles, still have assigned at
a VR&E office a Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER),
fulfilling the role of an ISC. There is currently either a DVOP
specialist or LVER outstationed at least half-time in 48 of the VA
Regional Offices and in 19 satellite offices. This equates to 51.0 FTE
DVOP and 4.0 FTE LVER for a total FTE of 55.0.
In FY 2010, 4,989 disabled veterans who completed VR&E were
referred to the State Workforce Agencies for intensive employment
services. Of these, 1,764 were placed into employment for a placement
rate of 35 percent. This was at an average annual wage of $37,800.
During the first quarter of FY 2011, 1,323 referrals were made to
the State Workforce Agencies. We do not have final information on their
outcomes at this point.
The VETS focus on serving disabled veterans who participate in the
VE&E program remains of utmost importance to us. The ultimate goal in
this VA/DoL partnership is successful job placement and adjustment to
employment for disabled veterans without duplication, fragmentation, or
delay in the services provided.
We are proud of our collaboration with the VA to increase
employment opportunities for service-disabled veterans. That positive
working relationship has also carried over into other initiatives and
strengthened cooperation and coordination between VETS and our State
workforce partners.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
Prepared Statement of Ruth A. Fanning,
Director, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program. I am pleased to be accompanied
by Ms. Iris Cooper, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office
of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction. We look forward to
continuing our strong collaboration and partnership with this
Subcommittee, the full Committee, and the entire Congress as we work
together to enhance the delivery of benefits and services to our
Nation's veterans with disabilities.
Overview of the VR&E Program
The VR&E program is designed to assist disabled servicemembers in
their transition to civilian life and suitable employment and careers.
Our primary mission is to assist veterans with service-connected
disabilities to prepare for and obtain suitable and sustainable
employment through the provision of services individually tailored to
each veteran's needs. VR&E services begin with a comprehensive
evaluation to help veterans identify and understand their interests,
aptitudes, and transferable skills. Next, vocational exploration
focuses veterans' potential career goals with labor-market demands.
This allows veterans to participate in the development of a
rehabilitation plan that builds on their transferable skills and
ultimately assists them in achieving their career goals. To help
veterans accomplish their rehabilitation goals, VR&E provides a broad
range of employment services such as:
Translation of military experience to civilian skill
sets;
Direct job-placement services;
Short-term training to augment existing skills to
increase employability (e.g., certification preparation tests and
sponsorship of certification); and
Long-term training including on-the-job training,
apprenticeships, college training, or services that support self-
employment.
In addition, VR&E provides extensive outreach and early
intervention services through our Coming Home to Work (CHTW) program.
Under this program, full-time VR&E rehabilitation counselors are
assigned to 13 military treatment facilities to assist disabled
servicemembers in planning for their next careers. We also have CHTW
coordinators in every regional office working with Department of
Defense (DoD) Warrior Transition Units and programs, coming home
events, Guard and Reserve Yellow Ribbon events, and Post Deployment
Health Reassessments.
VR&E Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget
The FY 2012 budget request for VR&E supports 1,286 direct Full Time
Employees (FTE), an increase of 132 FTE from the current 2010 level of
1,154. These additional resources will support a projected 15 percent
increase in workload from FY 2010, and expand two very important
programs.
110 employees are requested to increase VR&E's early
intervention and outreach program in the joint VA/DoD Integrated
Disability Evaluation System (IDES). VR&E rehabilitation counselors at
the selected IDES sites will provide separating servicemembers with a
mandatory initial counseling session, followed by continued vocational
services for eligible servicemembers who elect to participate in the
VR&E program. Initial meetings will inform servicemembers of the
availability of benefits and services through the VR&E and other VA
education programs. In many cases, this will allow training and
preparatory services to begin while the servicemember is still in the
IDES process.
Nine additional FTE are requested to expand VA's
VetSuccess on Campus initiative. This program, already in place at
eight campuses, supports veteran-students in completing college and
entering fulfilling careers. VR&E rehabilitation counselors and Vet
Center counselors provide strong on-campus support systems that include
counseling services, assistance in accessing VA benefits, help in
overcoming barriers that may include physical or mental health issues,
and assistance in connecting with other veteran-students.
In addition, the FY 2012 budget request supports modernization of
the Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). Program content will
be specifically tailored to servicemember and veteran audiences and
DTAP will be deployed in multiple channels, making it readily
accessible to servicemembers, veterans, and family members on a ``just-
in-time'' basis.
The budget request also supports VR&E's ongoing transformation
initiative to streamline and simplify our processes, speed veterans'
entry into VR&E services, while freeing staff to focus on direct
service delivery such as vocational counseling and job placement
assistance versus time consuming administrative efforts.
VR&E Legislatively Mandated Studies
Public Law 110-389 required VA to conduct two studies; section 333
specified a study on the completion of VR&E services, and section 334
specified a 20-year longitudinal study of three veteran cohorts.
The Study of Measures to Assist and Encourage Veterans in
Completing Vocational Rehabilitation (mandated by section 333), was
completed and reported to Congress in April, 2010. VR&E has implemented
or is in the process of implementing all six recommendations resulting
from the study. These recommendations included satisfaction surveys of
veterans who leave before completing their programs; provision of
opportunities for counselors to develop skills that contribute to
positive client relationships; active outreach regarding VR&E programs
and services to veterans and their families; increased integration of
vocational rehabilitation and other services, so that the main factors
influencing program dropouts are addressed early; studies to identify
factors associated with program completion; and studies on financial
incentives that promote program completion.
We did not request funding in FY 2010 or FY 2011 to conduct the
longitudinal study, but VR&E Service completed preliminary analysis to
establish the study protocol for data collection. Our FY 2012 budget
request includes funding to support submission of full requirements of
the FY 2012 longitudinal study. Although the longitudinal study
required by section 334 was not funded in FY 2010 or FY 2011, VR&E
Service is preparing a report for submission to Congress that will
aggregate the limited data available for the first 2010 cohort group.
VA expects to furnish it in July 2011.
Program Participation and Metrics
The VR&E program currently serves approximately 105,000 veterans
through the VetSuccess program. Of that number, approximately 57,000
are engaged in rehabilitation plans leading toward employability for
career outcomes that will be realized this year or over the next 5
years, depending on the program track and duration, as well as economic
factors in the labor market. The remaining 48,000 veterans are in other
phases of the program, such as evaluation and planning. Of those
veterans who were provided a ``track'' of services and exited during FY
2010, 77 percent, or more than 10,000, were successfully rehabilitated
last year.
We project participation to increase 5 percent (approximately
109,000) in FY 2011 and 10 percent (approximately 120,000) in FY 2012.
These increases are based on the increase of compensable presumptive
conditions, VR&E's participation in the IDES process, and Congress'
recent changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) that will allow
VR&E participants who are eligible for Chapter 33 benefits to elect the
higher Chapter 33 housing allowance. The veteran-to-counselor caseload
ratio is 136 participants per counselor. With the anticipated workload
and staffing increases, we expect the 2012 ratio to be similar.
Over the past three fiscal years, VR&E Service has placed a large
focus on the independent living (IL) program, which serves those
veterans who are unable to work due to significant disabilities. In
fiscal year 2010, we developed 2,456 new IL plans, which are used to
maximize veteran's autonomy with activities of daily living at home and
in their communities. Reductions in the number of IL plans in prior
years are related to two primary factors. First, VR&E concentrated a
significant amount of training to ensure the field is providing IL
services consistent with regulatory requirements. Second, we focused
training on services that are holistic in nature, incorporating both
employment and IL services. These hybrid plans do not count toward the
yearly cap of IL cases. In addition, as assistive technology continues
to progress and new rehabilitation models allow veterans with more
significant disabilities to enter the working world, we anticipate that
hybrid rehabilitation plans that address both independent living and
employment needs will continue to increase. VR&E's objective is to
assist service-disabled veterans enter the workforce so they can
realize the corresponding positive impact on self-esteem and health
resulting from their careers, and so that our Nation can benefit from
their skills and contributions.
We anticipate that, as servicemembers continue to return with
complex injuries, and Vietnam veterans with serious and progressive
disabilities are awarded service-connection based on the new Agent
Orange presumptive conditions, we will continue to focus additional
attention on this critical VA program.
Contracting
After the National Acquisition Strategy (NAS) contracts ended in
July 2009, VR&E applied lessons learned from those contracts into an
interim contract solution for regional offices needing contract
counseling services to augment the services provided by VA employees.
Local regional office VR&E programs were assisted in awarding local
``bridge'' contracts until new VetSuccess contracts could be put into
place. Currently we have 62 bridge contracts, overseen by 29
contracting officers. We also converted some contracting funds to
support additional FTE in order to improve timeliness and quality. As
we have previously discussed with Subcommittee staff, effective today,
we are commencing the award of the new VetSuccess contracts. These new
contracts standardize contracting procedures, including structured
report templates, standardized referral processes and forms, and a new
automated invoicing and invoice approval process.
Through cross-VA coordination and support from VBA field personnel;
the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction (OALC); and the
Office of General Counsel, we created a sound acquisition product,
corresponding training, and a comprehensive post-award governance
process to ensure continued oversight of contractors and appropriate
administration by VR&E staff designated as contracting officer
representatives. New contractors will have a 90-day ramp-up period to
finalize staffing, complete security background checks and required
security training. OALC and VR&E will conduct a post-award conference
with successful offerors to ensure a thorough understanding of all
relevant contracting processes, contract terms and conditions, and
roles and responsibilities for the successful execution of the
contracts. Contract administration tasks will be delegated as
appropriate to administrative contracting officers and contracting
officer technical representatives. As part of the contract phase-in,
the VA team will ensure contractor compliance with contract staffing
and space requirements. This process enables VA to verify that
contractors have the capability to deliver quality services to
veterans, in a timely manner.
Coordination with Rehabilitation Partners
VA coordinates with rehabilitation partners around the country--
including with colleges and universities, the Department of Education
(particularly the Rehabilitation Services Administration), the
Department of Labor, the Office of Personnel Management, DoD Wounded
Warrior Programs, and Veterans Service Organizations. The Department of
Education's Veterans Upward Bound program provides many important
services to veterans preparing to reenter college, including assessment
of academic skills, refresher courses, assistance in completing college
admission forms, personal academic advice and career counseling,
assistance in completing financial aid and scholarship applications,
tutoring and mentoring, and referrals to other community agencies
serving veterans. Similarly, the Department of Education's Center for
Excellence for Veteran Student Success program provides grant funds to
colleges to encourage model programs to support veteran-student success
in post-secondary education. These programs coordinate services to
address the academic, financial, physical, and social needs of veteran-
students and are strong complements to the VA's VetSuccess on Campus
program. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Department
of Education to ensure that assistance is coordinated and any overlap
of services minimized.
Business Process Reengineering Project
VR&E Service recently launched a transformation project geared to
make our VetSuccess program the premier 21st Century Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program. In 2004, a VR&E Task Force
report provided 110 recommendations to improve operations and service
delivery. VR&E Service implemented 100 of the 2004 VR&E Taskforce
recommendations. In the 7 years since this Task Force report, VA has
identified other significant opportunities to enhance service to
Veterans. VR&E's current transformation effort focuses on modernizing
and streamlining services using a veteran-centric approach.
VR&E's transformative changes include allowing veterans more choice
in their appointment scheduling through automated scheduling, and
expediting the veteran's entry into a rehabilitation program by
streamlining and expediting the evaluation and planning process through
reduction of bureaucratic processes and paperwork performed by VR&E
counselors. Additional improvements include developing a caseload and
staffing model and additional performance metrics for oversight and
administration of the VR&E program. Next month VR&E is releasing a
Knowledge Management Portal to simplify counselors' access to
regulations, guidance, and other policy information needed to perform
their jobs. And finally, VR&E is developing methods and business rules
to move into a paperless processing model that incorporates self-
service.
Working in collaboration with VA's Innovation Initiative (VAi2),
VR&E Service is also engaged in innovative initiatives to build self-
employment incubators and tools, leading to more veteran-owned
businesses; self-management that will allow the most seriously disabled
veterans to work in the career of their choosing and live as
independently as possible; and developing a VA employee innovation
competition to allow the staff working every day with our veterans to
identify additional program enhancements. Important partners in the
self-employment innovation have included the Small Business
Administration and VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization.
Another extremely important initiative is the enhancement of the
VetSuccess.gov Web site to provide a one-stop resource for veterans and
family members for services during transition, campus life, job search,
and careers, as well as assistance to maximize independence in their
homes and communities. The Web site includes a job board for employers
desiring to hire veterans, resume builders and upload tools that allow
veterans to utilize resumes already developed, military-to-civilian
jobs translator, aggregator tools for employers seeking certain skill
sets and for veterans seeking specific jobs, and a feedback mechanism
to self-report employment gained through the site. The job-board
feature of VetSuccess.gov currently connects over 60,000 veterans with
over 1,300 employers. Veterans also have access through the Direct
Employers Job Central career board to over 4 million jobs, with
additional links to Simply Hired, Indeed, and Google. Future
enhancements to the site will include self-assessment tools and
interactive maps that drill down to resources in the veteran's
community.
Conclusion
VA will continue to seek new and innovative ways to assist veterans
in achieving their goals for full, productive, and meaningful lives.
Our focus is on helping veterans build upon the excellent skills gained
through their military service, while streamlining and enhancing our
services. VA will continue to work with all sectors of Government and
private and public employment communities to assist veterans in
reaching their highest potential in this challenging economy.
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to respond to any questions
from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
Statement of Hon. Jeff Denham,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, and Ranking Member Braley for having
this hearing today. I also want to thank our two panels who are here
today to testify before our Subcommittee. Thank you for your time.
The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Service is a
crucial service for our veterans. Not only does the VR&E help place
them in jobs when they return home, but they work to help rehabilitate
our veterans who sustained wounds and impairments during service. Often
times these wounds and impairments are life-altering. In addition there
is the VetSuccess program that offers services to veterans so that they
can live as independently as possible despite their severe service-
connected disabilities.
The resources that we provide our veterans through the VR&E are not
only necessary, but crucial to ensure that they are able to reintegrate
back into civilian life. The impacts of War on a veteran are damaging
and can be everlasting. The post deployment transition is nothing short
of difficult, and can be greatly exacerbated when a servicemember comes
back from war with a service sustained injury or disability. We have a
duty in this Committee to make sure that we meet the needs of our
veterans through the VR&E program and that we do it right.
We must make sure that the veterans who are eligible to receive the
services of the VR&E are actually receiving these services and that
they are effective. The Department of Labor stated that in FY 2010 of
the 4,989 disabled veterans who completed the VR&E program and who were
referred to the State Workforce Agencies, only 35 percent were placed
into employment. This is not acceptable. The VR&E program must be
improved to further our efforts to help veterans find jobs and to
ensure they placed in jobs.
In addition, we must work to make sure that the VR&E system is
running effectively. With an increase in servicemembers returning home
from Iraq and Afghanistan, we must make sure that we have the
infrastructure to provide our VR&E services to these men and women. In
order to meet the upcoming demands on the VR&E program, the efficiency
of the program need to be improved. Our veterans cannot have VA
counselors tied up by filing paperwork instead of helping place them in
jobs. The VR&E system cannot become backlogged like our disability
claims are.
The VR&E program is a crucial program for the success and future of
our veterans. I look forward to working with my fellow members of this
Committee to continue to improve the VR&E program and ensure its
success for our veterans. And with that, I yield back.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 4, 2011
Ms. Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW
Director of Veterans Policy
VetsFirst
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Ms. Ansley:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Oversight
Hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract on March 31, 2011.
Please answer the enclosed hearing questions and deliverables by no
later than Monday, May 16, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
VetsFirst, a Program of United Spinal Association
Washington, DC.
May 12, 2011
The Honorable Marlin Stutzman
Chairman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Bruce Braley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity regarding
our views concerning the budget and performance of the Department of
Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Services
program.
In response to your request, enclosed are responses to the
questions received for the record.
If you have any questions, please contact Heather Ansley, Director
of Veterans Policy, at (202) 556-2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW
Director of Veterans Policy
__________
Question 1: Do you have any concerns regarding how the VR&E program
defines and classifies a participant?
Response: VetsFirst believes that the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program must
define and classify participants in the VR&E program to include
veterans who stop participating in the program. In order to determine
whether the program is adequately meeting the needs of veterans, VR&E
must accurately assess who is participating in and benefiting from the
program. Including veterans who participate in the program but
subsequently drop out is a better measure of the program's success
rate.
An accurate measure of participants would provide VR&E program
staff and Congress with the information necessary to determine whether
current programs are functioning appropriately. A proper accounting of
participants would also assist in the determination of whether
additional resources are needed to help VR&E better meet the needs of
veterans with disabilities.
Question 2: In addition to counselors, what other types of
employees does VR&E need?
Response: Although the VR&E program has received an increased
allocation of employees in recent years, VR&E continues to need
additional employees to effectively perform its mission. VetsFirst
supports the staffing recommendations detailed by the Independent
Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs for Fiscal Year 2012.
Specifically, in addition to an increased number of counselors, VR&E
requires additional personnel to oversee and manage contract counselors
and rehabilitation and employment service providers.
Also, VetsFirst supports VR&E's college campus initiative,
``Veteran Success on Campus.'' VetsFirst believes that this initiative
should be expanded to additional college campuses to ensure that
veterans receive the support needed to successfully complete their
education, which will provide the skills these veterans need to obtain
appropriate employment. Thus, the VR&E program must receive additional
staff to appropriately expand this initiative.
Question 3: In your opinion, has the arbitrary timeline of 12 years
for eligibility and the caps for independent living impacted veterans?
Response: VetsFirst believes that the mere existence of the
arbitrary timeline for eligibility for participation and the placement
of caps for independent living services negatively impacts veterans.
Services that assist veterans with disabilities related to their
service and are designed to promote independence and self-sufficiency
should be made available as needed. With regard to the cap for
independent living services, in particular, VR&E must not be hindered
in assisting veterans who can benefit from those services because they
are vital to community and family reintegration.
Question 4: If VA has never exceeded the independent living cap why
should it be removed?
Response: Veterans who have significant disabilities related to
their service must have the opportunity to learn the independent living
skills that will help them to live in their homes and communities.
VetsFirst believes that services that support veterans reintegrating
into their communities should be fully promoted and financially
supported. Independent living skills are vital to helping veterans with
disabilities develop new perspectives on how to successfully navigate
their homes and communities after acquiring a disability.
Furthermore, as stated in VetsFirst's written testimony, caps may
lead to delayed entry for some eligible veterans until the next fiscal
year when additional slots are available. Removal of the cap will
ensure that services are available as needed and eliminate any negative
consequences associated with it. Regardless, any argument against
removing the cap because it has never been exceeded is false because if
there are no unmet needs, then removing the cap should not result in
any unintended consequences.
Question 5: How much money can VA spend to help a veteran start a
business for self-employment?
Response: According to VR&E program staff, there is no cost limit
for the amount of funding that VA can provide to assist an eligible
veteran start a business for the purposes of self-employment. The Code
of Federal Regulations discusses cost in the context of differing
levels of approval based on the cost associated with a veteran's self
employment plan. Specifically, 38 CFR Sec. 21.258 states that, ``Any
self-employment plan with an estimated or actual cost of $25,000 or
more must be approved by the Director, VR&E Service.'' Before
determining whether any funds should be expended, VR&E determines
whether in view of a veteran's level of disability, the goal of self-
employment is realistic and economically viable.
Question 6: How can VA best anticipate the demands for tomorrow's
workplace?
Response: VetsFirst believes that VA's VR&E program must prepare
veterans with disabilities, particularly those with severe
disabilities, for long-term career success. Consequently, VR&E program
staff must be aware of employment trends and emerging career fields to
ensure that veterans are fully aware of the best areas for long-term
career growth. This includes changing market places, trends in
telework, and other evolutions that may be particularly important to
these veterans as people with disabilities.
In order to ensure that these veterans have the tools they need to
succeed, VR&E must also be able to perform critical follow up with
veterans who have been successfully rehabilitated. Remaining abreast of
the conditions these veterans are facing in the workforce, particularly
with regard to the barriers faced due to disability, the VR&E program
can be continually modified to ensure that new participants are staying
on the cutting of edge of success. This is particularly critical for
veterans who face significant barriers to employment due to disability
and workplace misperceptions about the abilities of people who have
disabilities due to hearing or vision loss, post-traumatic stress
disorder, traumatic brain injury, and paralysis.
Question 7: Is there a difference in VR&E completion rates between
men and women?
Response: According to VR&E program staff, female participants
comprised approximately 19 percent of the participants in all VR&E
programs for fiscal year 2010. Specifically, VR&E reports that 22,135
female veterans were participants in all VR&E programs during that time
period as compared with 94,995 male veterans. The number of female
veterans who VR&E considers to have entered rehabilitated status during
fiscal year 2010 was 2,096 versus 7,942 male veterans. Thus, female
veterans comprised nearly 21 percent of all veterans who entered
rehabilitated status for fiscal year 2010.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 4, 2011
Mr. John L. Wilson
Assistant National Legislative Director
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Oversight
Hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract on March 31, 2011.
Please answer the enclosed hearing questions and deliverables by no
later than Monday, May 16, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Post-Hearing Questions for John Wilson,
Assistant National Legislative Director of The Disabled American
Veterans
Following the March 31, 2011 Hearing of Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Question 1: Do you have any concerns regarding how the VR&E program
defines and classifies a participant?
Response: To participate in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA)
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) programs, applicants
must meet certain specific criteria. A veteran must have received, or
will eventually receive, an honorable or other than dishonorable
discharge, have a service-connected disability of at least 10 percent,
need vocational rehabilitation to overcome an employment handicap and
apply for vocational rehabilitation services. DAV is not aware of any
concerns regarding how VR&E defines and classifies participants'
eligibility in order to receive assistance.
Our concern is with the manner in which VR&E Service defines and
classifies its participant rehabilitation rates. Counting individuals
who receive services from VR&E but decide to discontinue the program
and those who participate in the Independent Living Program would seem
to inflate the actual success rate of those considered ``fully
rehabilitated.'' Our concern is in line with the General Accountability
Office's report from January 2009, VA Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program, which noted:
For example, VA reported an overall rehabilitation rate of 76
percent for fiscal year 2008. However, when we computed the
rates for each group separately, we found that 73 percent of
veterans seeking employment were successful and 92 percent of
veterans seeking independent living were successful.\1\
A refining of statistical information that provides separate
metrics for those who are fully rehabilitated, those who leave the
program early, and those participating in the Independent Living
Program would enhance the ability of Congress and others to better
determine the effectiveness of those services and foster greater
confidence in policy changes or the need for additional funding.
Additionally, the current period of eligibility for VR&E benefits
of 12 years from the date of separation from the military or the date
the veteran was first notified by VA of a service-connected disability
rating must be modified. Unfortunately, many veterans do not avail
themselves of these benefits because they do not understand them or
they only seek them later in life when their disabilities create an
employment barrier and would benefit from VR&E services. Unfortunately,
this later application is often well beyond the 12-year delimiting
date. If eligibility for this benefit were open ended, then veterans
would be able to access it on a needs basis over their employable
lifetimes. In accordance with DAV Resolution 303, we urge Congress to
change the eligibility delimiting date for VR&E services by eliminating
the 12-year eligibility period for chapter 31 benefits.
Question 2: Has the placement of Intensive Service Coordinator by
DoL in VR&E sites been effective for participants during their
rehabilitation?
Response: The Department of Labor (DoL) has placed Intensive
Service Coordinators (ISCs), on a full or part-time basis, at each of
the 57 VA Regional Offices (VAROs) to further assist veterans in
finding and maintaining suitable employment. We are unaware of any
comprehensive assessments to determine the effectiveness of this
collaboration beyond a September 2007 GAO report, Disabled Veterans'
Employment: Additional Planning, Monitoring, and Data Collection
Efforts Would Improve Assistance. \2\ In this report, GAO visited state
workforce agencies in Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan and South
Dakota. They met with VA and DoL staff, state workforce agency
officials, and program participants and toured job resource labs and
one-stop career centers. Based on this research, they noted:
In all five states, we were told that staff evaluations
contained a general category related to teamwork or
cooperation, but did not include specific performance measures
to evaluate DVOP specialists and VA staff on the effectiveness
of their partnership activities. In one state, workforce agency
managers told us that they were considering implementing
specific performance measures related to the effectiveness of
partnership activities.\3\
As VA's VR&E and DoL's VETS continue in their efforts to enhance
delivery of services, DAV recommends that both organizations make every
effort to ensure specific performance measures are established to
evaluate the effectiveness of placement of DVOP specialist within
VAROs. Once in place, greater insight into the success of this
collaboration between DoL and VA would be available to Congress.
Question 3: Is the VA doing enough for medical and psychological
rehabilitation to help disabled veterans become gainfully employed?
Response: In the context of this hearing on the VR&E Service's
fiscal year 2012 budget, vocational counselors are not assigned the
role of monitoring a veterans' health care treatment regimen while they
go through the VR&E program. VR&E instead focuses on the goal of
helping find gainful employment for veterans who have a service-
connected disability rating of at least 10 percent and a serious
employment handicap. While they work closely with veterans on this
goal, an inquiry of several contacts in VAROs confirmed that their
vocational counselors do not generally monitor veterans' health care
treatments unless it is directly related to their employability. There
may be circumstances where clients inform their counselors of their
health concerns and treatment regimens, but this is on an individual
basis and does not seem to be typical.
Vocational counselors interest and monitoring of health care
treatment related to a veterans employability is in accordance with
title 38, Section 21.240, Medical treatment, care and services, which
states, ``A Chapter 31 participant shall be furnished medical
treatment, care and services which VA determines are necessary to
develop, carry out and complete the veteran's rehabilitation plan. The
provision of such services is a part of the veteran's entitlement to
benefits and services under Chapter 31, and is limited to the period or
periods in which the veteran is a Chapter 31 participant. (Authority:
38 U.S.C. 1504, 3107).'' Examples of this care include prosthetic
appliances, eyeglasses, and other corrective and assistive devices, as
well as treatment, care, and services described in 38 U.S.C. 3104,
chapter 17.
There is currently no provision for VR&E Service to track a
veteran's health care regimen beyond that which impacts employability.
It is our understanding however that VR&E does offer joint training to
their staffs as well as their state vocational rehabilitation partners
on Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other
veteran-specific disability issues in an effort to improve cross-agency
coordination of rehabilitation and employment assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Accountability Office, VA Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program, January 2009, GAO-09-34, page 4.
\2\ GAO report entitled 'Disabled Veterans' Employment: Additional
Planning, Monitoring, and Data Collection Efforts Would Improve
Assistance, September 12, 2007, GAO-07-1020.
\3\ Ibid, page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 4, 2011
Mr. Richard C. Daley
Associate Legislation Director
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Daley:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Oversight
Hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract on March 31, 2011.
Please answer the enclosed hearing questions and deliverables by no
later than Monday, May 16, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Washington, DC.
May 13, 2011
Honorable Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Braley:
On behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to present our views during the
Subcommittee's oversight hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Program, March 31, 2011. We are pleased that the
Subcommittee continues to focus on these issues that are important to
Paralyzed Veterans of America's members, veterans with disabilities,
and all the men and women that have honorably served their nation.
We have included with our letter a response to each of the
questions that you presented following the hearing on March 31, 2011.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Rich Daley
Associate Legislation Director
__________
Questions for the Record for the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
From Hearing on March 31, 2011
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program
Question 1: In your opinion, has the 12 year timeline of
eligibility had a negative impact on veterans?
Response: In my opinion the 12 year timeline should be eliminated.
Some seriously injured veterans, such as spinal cord injured, may take
three to 4 years or more with rehabilitation and physical therapy to
begin to realize that there are options for the veteran to participate
in life activities which can include reentering the work place. Over
time with therapy from the VA the veteran may relearn to drive an
adapted vehicle, or obtain a vehicle for someone else to transport them
to activities or appointments. During these years their eligibility
period is elapsing. PVA has found that many seriously injured veterans
become interested in seeking employment after the 12 year period. This
timeline should be eliminated. We believe that the 48 months maximum of
VR&E participation is limit enough, so there should be no timeline.
Question 2: Do you believe that VR&E has too many reports?
Response: This would be the conclusion one could draw from
testimony on VR&E's performance over the last 10 years. The verbal and
written testimony presented at these hearings reveal that VR&E staff
has too many reports that are mandatory for the professional staff
while the disabled veteran waits for services.
The issue of two many reports is also supported by experienced
counselors that have been employed by the VA's VR&E program. Along with
too many reports these former employees discussed the issue of the
duplication or redundancy of many reports that are required. Time
consumed working on reports reduces the amount of valuable time to work
with the disabled veterans.
Question 3: Can you share with this Committee the name and contact
information of the veteran that was expelled from VR&E for punctuality?
Response: Due to privacy concerns we cannot share this information.
Question 4: What are some shortcomings you have seen from
contractors?
Response: My knowledge of contractors' performance issues would be
from past House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs oversight
hearings on VR&E, GAO reports on VR&E, and information from PVA's
service officers and information from other veterans' service
organizations.
PVA would prefer that VA trained and employed counselors could
provide VR&E counseling and assistance to all veterans that may require
this help. Within today's budget constraints the VA must rely on using
contract counseling to provide service in remote areas and in
situations where the workload has expanded beyond the capacities of the
existing VA staff. Although we would prefer a VA trained and qualified
VA staff person to work with disabled veterans at this time we must
accept this alternative. Past problems such as inconsistency in
contract performance requirements and inconsistency in the pricing of
services performed is being addressed by the VA Central Office. The VA
regional offices must conduct regular oversight of the contracted
service providers to ensure that every veteran is receiving the quality
help and guidance they require. In the past we know that in some
geographic areas the veteran would receive limited services such as
testing and evaluating work readiness of the veteran, but the contract
requirements stopped at that point. There was no further employment
assistance or guidance. In these situations the veteran only received
part of the needed services. Regional offices must receive regular
training in contracting services to non VA providers to insure
consistency along with efficientcy in the procurement of these
services. VR&E must maintain its responsibility to the veterans it
serves by monitoring the quality and impact of vocational
rehabilitation services delivered by non VA agencies.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 4, 2011
Mr. John M. McWilliam
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Management
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Mr. McWilliam:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Oversight
Hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract on March 31, 2011.
Please answer the enclosed hearing questions and deliverables by no
later than Monday, May 16, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
Washington, DC.
The Honorable Bruce Braley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
333 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Braley:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to additional questions
from your hearing entitled, ``U.S. Department of Affairs Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E), Program Budget and VR&E National
Counseling Contract,'' on March 31, 2011 in which the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (VETS) testified. Enclosed, we have
restated the questions in their entirety and provided the respective
answers.
If you have further questions, please call Margaret Cantrell at
(202) 693-4600.
Sincerely,
Brian V. Kennedy
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
Enclosures
__________
Veterans' Employment and Training Service,
U.S. Department of Labor
Responses to Questions for the Record from the
U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
March 31, 2011
Hearing on ``Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program
Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract''
Ranking Member Braley
Question 1: Can you explain how you determine your placement rate?
Response: The placement rate is calculated as the number of
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) participants placed
into employment by the State Workforce Agencies (SWA) divided by the
number of participants referred to the SWA.
The SWAs place participants into employment through services
provided by Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) at
the One-Stop Career Centers. Participants are referred to the SWAs when
they are determined by their VR&E counselor as job ready and are
available for employment.
Question 2: In your written testimony, you mentioned that three
work groups established in response to the Memorandum of Agreement
between DoL and VA to help identify major issues with sharing data
between VA and DoL. What issues were identified? a) How are these
issues being resolved?
Response: As background, in November of 2009, VETS began using a
revised data collection form for Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) participant information. The data collected through
the application of this approved form is shared with the Veteran
Affairs (VA) VR&E Joint Work Group (JWG) members.
In June of 2010, VETS facilitated a conference that included
participation by the Intensive Service Coordinators (ISCs) from the
State Workforce Agencies, select staff members from VA VR&E, and VETS'
field staff. The conference focused on the requirements of the
participant data collection form and the importance of common data
definitions.
After collecting participant data from 58 VR&E sites in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2010, the JWG identified inconsistencies on the use of some
closure codes used within the data collection form, which tracks the
level of participant rehabilitation and employment success. To resolve
these inconsistencies in reporting, the JWG is working together to
develop, expand, and clarify the closure codes used to measure VR&E
participants' level of rehabilitation and employment success.
Question 3: VA states that they expect a 5 percent participation
increase next year. What percent increase is VETS expecting for the
next year?
Response: VETS assumes that the ratio of referrals to participants
will remain the same next year as it has been in recent years.
Therefore, if the VR&E participation increases by 5 percent next year,
VETS would anticipate a corresponding increase of 5 percent in the
number of referrals from the VA VR&E program for the coming year.
Question 4: What have been the main obstacles that veterans have
faced in employment placement?
Response: In FY 2009 and FY 2010, the principal obstacle faced by
veterans, as well as all job seekers, has been the reduction in job
openings that resulted from employers' response to the recent
recession. However, our programs are aimed at giving veterans the best
chance possible for reemployment by ensuring that employers are aware
of the benefits of hiring a veteran and helping veterans translate
their military skills into skills for civilian jobs.
Question 5: In your written testimony, you mentioned that the
Intensive Service Coordinators refer VR&E participants to services at
the end of the program. Why can't the Intensive Service Coordinators
begin providing intensive services to VR&E participants before they
finish the program to expedite services?
Response: The Intensive Services Coordinators (ISCs) do provide
services to participants throughout the participant's VR&E program. The
services mentioned in the testimony refer to the actual referral to a
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) in the OSCC. In December
2008, VETS and the VA jointly published a Technical Assistance
Guidance, which requires those VR&E participants considered by their VA
counselor as ``Job Ready'' are to be referred to the ISC sixty days
prior to completion of their training program. Job Ready refers to
those participants who are determined by their counselor to be ready,
willing, and able to participate in job development activities. This
allows DVOP specialists to start working with VR&E participants prior
to the completion of their training.
Additionally, VETS is collecting data on those veterans who are
referred to the ISC at the very beginning of their participation in
VR&E, so that they can receive labor market information in conjunction
with the development of their training plans. This is intended to
improve veterans' chances of obtaining suitable employment in an
occupation that is projected to experience future growth.
Question 6: What type of employment are disabled veterans who have
completed VR&E generally placed in?
Response: For FY 2010, VA VR&E data indicate that over three-
fourths of the disabled veterans who enter employment after completing
services covered under title 38 USC Chapter 31 are placed in
professional, technical and managerial occupations, and that over half
of the disabled veterans who enter employment are placed in occupations
in the private sector. Chapter 31 is intended to provide for all
services and assistance necessary to enable veterans with service-
connected disabilities to achieve maximum independence in daily living
and, to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain
and maintain suitable employment.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 4, 2011
Ms. Ruth A. Fanning
Director Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Ms. Fanning:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Oversight
Hearing on the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract on March 31, 2011.
Please answer the enclosed hearing questions and deliverables by no
later than Monday, May 16, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-
2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Bruce Braley, Ranking Member
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
``VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program
Budget and VR&E National Counseling Contract''
March 31, 2011
Question 1: VSOs have expressed concern over the inconsistent
interpretation of regulations across VA. Is this a concern for you and
is it being addressed?
Response: VR&E Service believes that regulations should be clearly
written and easily understood by all employees and stakeholders. To
ensure this, VR&E provides a comprehensive training program. VR&E has
formed a workgroup with the Office of General Counsel to address any
existing lack of clarity or inconsistency in regulations governing our
program.
VR&E is currently drafting regulations to implement new legislation
and address emergent issues, including:
Implementation of Public Law 111-377 (Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvement Act of 2010), which provides for
election of housing allowance in lieu of subsistence allowance and
eliminates interval pay; and
Defining rules for establishing rate of pursuit for
subsistence allowance in programs combining academic training with non-
paid work experience training.
VR&E is also conducting a comprehensive review and revision of the
Code of Federal Regulations Part 21, Subpart A. VR&E-related
regulations will be re-written to increase the use of plain language
and improve benefits service delivery. Some of the topics that have
been identified for revision include:
Updates to travel reimbursements under Chapter 31,
Incorporation of flight-training rules into Chapter 31
regulations,
Medical services for Chapter 31 participants, and
Employment services for previous participants of
rehabilitation programs.
Question 2: In the hybrid rehabilitation plans that have been done,
can you tell us how many hours per day veterans are working?
Response: VR&E focuses on services that are holistic in nature,
incorporating both employment and independent living (IL) services as
needed rather than a predefined number of hours. Services are geared
toward an employment goal and also address identified IL needs. Thus,
VR&E does not track veteran work hours per day as a reporting
statistic.
Veterans participating in hybrid plans often require training to
acquire the skills necessary for suitable employment. When veterans
complete their training and become ready for employment, they are
assisted in maximizing their potential for their return to the
workplace. Veterans may work full or part-time depending on their
capabilities and specific preferences; however, the goal of hybrid
plans is for veterans to enter full-time competitive employment.
Question 3: The expansion to the Integrated Disability Evaluation
System (IDES) Program that will include a component on VR&E services
for those active duty servicemembers transitioning through the IDES
will require an additional 110 FTE to support. The budget has requested
$16.2 million to cover this increase. Given the big plan to expand IDES
to all Military Treatment Facilities by the end of FY 2011, do you
believe the additional 110 FTE is enough to meet the demand?
Response: In FY 2011, VR&E will provide transition services to
active duty servicemembers at four military installations. VR&E Service
is collaborating with DoD for implementation at these four facilities.
The additional 110 FTE will allow VR&E to aggressively stand up IDES
services at many additional sites by the end of FY 2012, but will not
fully support all sites during this initial phase. Staffing levels will
be reassessed in FY 2012 to ensure VR&E can support the needs of
servicemembers transitioning through IDES.
Question 4: According to a recent CRS report titled, ``Veterans'
Benefits: The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program''
approximately 25,000 active duty servicemembers are found ``not fit for
duty'' due to medical conditions that may qualify them for a VA
disability rating and VR&E Services. How many veterans apply to VR&E
yearly?
Response: Over the past three fiscal years, VR&E received an
average of 72,215 applications annually. Below is a breakdown of the
number of applications received for the past three fiscal years:
FY 2010-69,570
FY 2009-78,127
FY 2008-68,948
Question 4(a): What may prevent all 25,000 from applying to VR&E
services?
Response: VR&E is not a mandatory program. Veterans may elect to
immediately enter employment, utilize VA education benefits, or to take
time to decompress following active duty service. To ensure all
servicemembers and veterans are aware of benefits to which they are
entitled, VR&E has placed more emphasis on outreach activities. VR&E
provides extensive outreach and early intervention services through the
Coming Home to Work (CHTW) program. Under this program, full-time VR&E
rehabilitation counselors are assigned to 13 military treatment
facilities to assist disabled servicemembers in planning for their next
careers. VR&E also has CHTW coordinators working with the network of
Warrior Transition Units, participating in coming-home events, and
providing outreach at Guard and Reserve Yellow Ribbon events, Post
Deployment Health Reassessments, and DTAP sessions.
VR&E rehabilitation counselors at selected IDES sites provide
separating servicemembers with a mandatory initial counseling session,
followed by continued vocational services for servicemembers that elect
to participate in the VR&E program. Initial meetings will inform
servicemembers of the availability of benefits and services through the
VR&E and VA education programs. In many cases, this allows training and
preparatory services to begin while the servicemember is still in the
IDES process.
VR&E Service is also modernizing the Disabled Transition Assistance
Program (DTAP) to tailor program content to servicemember and veteran
audiences. DTAP will be available in multiple channels, making it
readily accessible to servicemembers, veterans, and family members on a
``just-in-time'' basis.
Question 5: How many Full-Time Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors
and Part-Time Vet Center Outreach Coordinators are there at each
VetSuccess on Campus site?
Response: There are seven VetSuccess on Campus counselors and seven
Vet Center Coordinators for the eight VetSuccess on Campus locations.
The VetSuccess on Campus counselor in Rhode Island is responsible for
providing services at two college campuses.
Question 6: How much money can VA spend to help a veteran start a
business?
Response: Services are based on a realistic self-employment goal,
economic viability, and severity of the veteran's service-connected
disability. There is no cost limit. However, there are specific
approval requirements for costs exceeding $25,000.
In addition, VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) and its Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE)
provide technical business assistance, coaching support, and referrals
to local non-VA resources, such as the Small Business Administration,
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), Procurement Technical
Assistance Centers (PTACs), or Veterans Business Outreach Centers
(VBOCs). OSDBU and CVE can refer entrepreneurs for assistance on
developing business plans, information on business loans, and advice on
contracting with Federal agencies where appropriate. CVE works with the
service-disabled veterans to ensure they are also working with a VR&E
counselor. OSDBU costs would be included within program administration
costs and not as part of a discrete cost (e.g., costs to counsel a
veteran entrepreneur on the phone would be covered by the salary cost
of the staff person providing the counseling). SBA costs would be
covered by its own appropriations. Technical assistance centers such as
SBDCs and PTACs are grantees and the costs of counseling would be
covered by their grants.
Question 6(a): In the past what have these start-up enterprises
consisted of and are any still in business today?
Response: Start-up enterprises vary based on the individual
veteran's needs. Below are a few examples for which VR&E has provided
self-employment funding:
Law Firm;
Carpenter Shop;
Automotive Repairs and Sales;
Medical Billing;
Winter Sports Equipment Shops;
Printing Shops;
Restaurants; and
Barber Shops.
To ensure that the veteran meets the objectives of the self-
employment goal, resources may be provided for:
Equipment, inventory, and supplies,
Training necessary to own and operate a successful
business, and
Licenses and permits.
VR&E counselors provide follow-up services to self-employed
veterans for at least 1 year after the start-up of the business.
However, once the counselor determines that the veteran's business is
successful and meets the criteria for successful closure as
``rehabilitated,'' no further follow up occurs. Therefore, information
on the number of veteran enterprises currently in business is not
available.
As mentioned in testimony, VR&E places great emphasis on assisting
veterans with business start-up through business incubator, on-line
resources, and business coaches. VR&E also provides extensive training
and ancillary services through partnerships with the Center for
Veterans Enterprise, the Small Business Administration, the Department
of Labor, and SCORE.
OSDBU and CVE can refer entrepreneurs for assistance on developing
business plans, information on business loans, and advice on
contracting with Federal agencies where appropriate. CVE works with the
service-disabled veterans to ensure they are also working with a VR&E
counselor.
Question 7: When the National Counseling Contract is completed what
percent of work will be done by VA employees versus non-VA employees?
Response: VetSuccess contracts are indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity agreements that allow regional offices to procure contracting
services as needed to supplement services provided by VR&E
professionals. The VR&E program's workload is comprised of 107,000
veterans' cases. All cases are assigned to Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselors (VRCs) that are VA employees. Contract counselors provide
additional support to VRCs, but all decisions related to veterans'
benefits are inherently governmental and must be made by VRCs. Based on
historical data, approximately 15 percent of cases assigned to VRCs
also receive ancillary services from contract counselors.
Question 8: Can you elaborate on the work VR&E is doing with the
Rehabilitation Services Administration?
Response: VR&E Service works collaboratively with the Department of
Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to advance,
improve, and expand the employment opportunities for veterans with
disabilities.
The successful readjustment of veterans with disabilities into the
civilian workforce is the mutual responsibility and concern of VR&E
Service and RSA. Both agencies are committed to working together to
improve successful employment outcomes to our Nation's veterans. VR&E
and RSA share information and coordinate activities to carry out and
support mutual objectives such as:
Develop and disseminate national guidance about statutory
requirements of the VR&E Program and the public vocational
rehabilitation program and identify opportunities for partnership;
Exchange information about best practices and joint
service provisions at the local levels, to include local-level pilot
programs and existing local-level collaborations;
Attend national meetings and training conferences for the
purpose of familiarizing both parties with the services, requirements,
best practices, and issues relating to collaboration at the local
level; and
Assign staff to participate in workgroups on topics of
mutual interest such as participation in RSA Institutes of
Rehabilitation Issues prime study groups.
VR&E is also completing a national memorandum of agreement (MoA)
with RSA to be signed by May 31, 2011. This MoA will emphasize and
support the establishment of more local-level MoAs between VR&E staff
in VBA regional offices and State vocational rehabilitation agencies in
the future. VR&E is conducting a pilot study with three State
vocational rehabilitation agencies through local-level MoAs. The pilot
was launched on February 11, 2010, in Atlanta; June 11, 2010, in St.
Louis; and October 14, 2010, in Seattle. The pilot focuses on providing
services to veterans with visual impairments.
VR&E also works collaboratively with the Council of State
Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation's National Employment Team
(CSAVR-NET). The Director of VR&E Service participated in a recent
CSAVR-NET conference to initiate a Veterans' Committee, and CSAVR-NET
has provided VR&E with a partnership award.
Question 9: In FY 2010, the performance measure target for VR&E was
76 percent, yet the FY 2012 performance measure target only increased
to 77 percent, why such a low performance target increase?
Question 9(a): If the strategic target goal is 80 percent why not
increase it to 80 percent?
Response: VR&E has established an 80 percent performance target for
FY 2014, which is a significant change from the performance measure of
76 percent in FY 2010. The interim step of 77 percent for FY 2011 was
established due to several factors such as rising caseload sizes and
increasingly complex disability needs. Newly injured veterans are
returning with multiple and complex needs, while the aging veteran
population has changing disability limitations. Additionally, the
current unemployment rate of 8.8 percent creates further challenges and
suggests that interim goals would aid in achieving the 80 percent
target by 2014.