<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27354.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-632
JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT THREE YEARS LATER: ARE VETS' EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
WORKING FOR VETERANS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-354 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Larry E. Craig, Idaho, Chairman
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii, Ranking
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Member
Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina John D. Rockefeller IV, West
Richard M. Burr, North Carolina Virginia
John Ensign, Nevada James M. Jeffords, (I) Vermont
John Thune, South Dakota Patty Murray, Washington
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Barack Obama, Illinois
Ken Salazar, Colorado
Lupe Wissel, Majority Staff Director
D. Noelani Kalipi, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 2, 2006
SENATORS
Page
Craig, Hon. Larry E., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Idaho.......... 1
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Hawaii.. 3
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia.................. 4
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 5
Burr, Hon. Richard M., U.S. Senator from North Carolina.......... 7
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 8
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois................... 9
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................. 49
WITNESSES
Principi, Hon. Anthony J., Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs.. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Larry E.
Craig...................................................... 14
Ciccolella, Hon. Charles S., Assistant Secretary for Veterans'
Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor.............. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Response to written questions submitted by:
Hon. Larry E. Craig........................................ 21
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka....................................... 27
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 29
Nilsen, Dr. Sigurd R., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office......... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Response to written questions submitted by:
Hon. Larry E. Craig........................................ 46
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 48
Poriotis, Wesley, Chairman, The Center for Military and Private
Sector Initiative.............................................. 65
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Proposal, Veterans Job Development Corps................... 71
White paper, Branding the Veteran.......................... 80
Written questions submitted by:
Hon. Larry E. Craig........................................ 83
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 83
Sharpe, Jr., Joseph C., Deputy Director, National Economic
Commission, The American Legion................................ 83
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Response to written questions submitted by:
Hon. Larry E. Craig........................................ 89
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 92
Weidman, Richard F., Director of Government Relations, Vietnam
Veterans of America............................................ 92
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Written questions submitted by:
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 100
Hon. Larry E. Craig........................................ 100
APPENDIX
Madsen, Roger B., Director of the Idaho Department of Commerce
and Labor, prepared statement.................................. 107
Miller, Randy M., Chairman and CEO of ReadyMinds, prepared
statement...................................................... 108
GAO report....................................................... 113
Table, Fiscal Year 2005 DVOP and LVER Actual FTE Utilization..... 173
JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT THREE YEARS LATER: ARE VETS' EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
WORKING FOR VETERANS?
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room SR-418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Craig, Burr, Thune, Isakson, Akaka,
Murray, Obama, and Salazar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Chairman Craig. Good morning, everyone. The U.S. Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be in order. Let me welcome
all of you to the Committee this morning. Thank you.
Today, we will be discussing a most important topic, jobs
for our Nation's veterans. Each year, roughly 200,000 service
members are separating from active duty, and for the most of
them, obtaining a job is a critical step in successfully
transitioning to civilian life. Last year alone, over 42,000 of
those separating service members were 20 to 24 years old, who
served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Ensuring a smooth transition for those young service
members who bravely fought for freedom should be a national
priority. Yet as the chart behind me shows, these unemployment
rates among young veterans have risen dramatically since the
war on terror began and now are approaching double the
unemployment rate of nonveterans in the same age group. I must
add, in a strong economy, as is true in most areas of our
country, these figures just don't fit.
This trend suggests to me that we, as a Nation, must do
more to help those young veterans succeed in civilian life and
in the civilian job market. Much of that help must continue to
come from leaders in the business community and in the public
sector who recognize the distinct advantages in hiring former
service members. Some of that help will come from employment
programs that can provide veterans with resources, knowledge,
and assistance that they need to find meaningful employment.
Today, we will examine the effectiveness of two such
programs administered by the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, the Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program, and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representative Program. For most of a decade, Congress, GAO,
and others have expressed concern that these programs are not
focusing on those most in need of services, including recently
separated veterans and veterans with disabilities.
In fact, in 1999, the Commission on Service Members and
Veterans Transition Assistance found that those groups of
veterans often did not receive the services they needed because
the program structure was outdated, inflexible, and unfocused,
and because there was no real accountability for employment
outcomes. That led to years of hearings, proposals, and
reports, which eventually culminated in the passage of the Jobs
for Veterans Act of 2002.
In December of last year, the GAO completed a comprehensive
review of the changes that have been made in the VETS
employment programs in the 3 years since the passage of the
Jobs for Veterans Act. Today, we will hear about many of those
changes, including new performance measures, efforts to reward
high performance, and increased use of case management
services. We also will hear that services providers believe
that these changes have improved the quality of services to
veterans and have improved veterans employment outcomes.
However, we will also learn that there are no data showing
that these changes have led to better employment outcomes for
veterans, and we will hear that accountability remains
problematic. Perhaps most significant, we will examine the high
unemployment rates of young, recently separated veterans and
veterans with disabilities, which suggest that these programs
still are not effectively targeting services to those most in
need.
As we begin this discussion, I want to stress that I have
no doubts about the dedication and the sincerity of those who
provide employment services to veterans and those who
administer these programs. However, after decades of
commissions and GAO reports, congressional hearings and attempt
at reform, it is time to embrace Benjamin Franklin's admonition
that the definition of insanity, ladies and gentlemen, is doing
the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
If these programs, as currently structured, are not helping
those veterans most in need, I believe we must acknowledge
that. It is time for fundamental changes in how we provide
employment services to our veterans.
To begin this important discussion today, I must tell you
that I am pleased to welcome back to this Committee the
Honorable Anthony J. Principi, whose groundbreaking work both
as Chairman of the Transition Commission and as Secretary of
Veterans Affairs led to increased scrutiny of veterans
employment services and the continuing search for ways to
improve them.
Welcome to you, Mr. Secretary. It is great to have you, and
we want to thank you for joining us today.
We also are pleased to be joined on our first panel by the
Honorable Charles Ciccolella, the Assistant Secretary for
Veterans' Employment and Training, and Dr. Sigurd Nilsen,
Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at
the GAO.
Welcome to all of you.
On our second panel, we are pleased to be joined by Wes
Poriotis--I always struggle at pronouncing names correctly
because my very difficult name, I enjoy having it pronounced
correctly--Chairman of the Center for Military and Private
Sector Initiatives and Joseph Sharpe, the Deputy Director for
the American Legion's National Economic Commission, and Rick
Weidman, the Director of Government Relations for Vietnam
Veterans of America.
Welcome to all of you. Before we start taking your
testimony, let me turn to my colleagues on the Committee and,
of course, to my Ranking Member, Senator Danny Akaka. Danny?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Chairman Craig, for
calling this hearing today. And Chairman Craig, I just want to
wish you well this year and wish us well this new year as we
continue to work on this Committee for veterans across our
country.
I want you to know I look forward to working with you again
because I enjoyed so much working with you in the past and look
forward to the future. Last year this Committee was very busy
and I am sure this year will be no different.
Before I move into the substance of the hearing, I would
like first to thank Chairman Craig for attending Committee
hearings in my home State of Hawaii during January.
Chairman Craig. He drug me out of the deep snows of Idaho
and pulled me across all of those islands, out in the Pacific,
warm breezes blowing. Thank you, Danny.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. You are very welcome and now you know how
hard I had to try to do that. Not only Chairman Craig, but his
staff also, and I really appreciate that. And, my own staff,
they did a great job in listening to our veterans out there in
Hawaii. As Senator Craig and his staff can attest, these
hearings were very well attended on four of the islands in
Hawaii.
I hope that VA, the Department of Labor, and this Committee
will continue to recognize the obstacles that Hawaii's veterans
face as they assess the benefits and care they have earned
through their selfless service to this country. Veterans in one
State must be sure that they receive services as veterans in
other States do, and the best kinds of services.
I also want to thank the witnesses for coming to this first
Committee hearing today. I especially want to welcome back our
good friend first, the Secretary of Veterans, Tony Principi,
before this Committee. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate all the
years you have served this Nation on behalf of our veterans,
and I want to thank you. I know you are a busy man, and thank
you for being here with us today.
Also I want to thank the others on this panel as well and
the second panel.
Today, the Committee will look into the employment and
training services available to veterans. Specifically, we will
hear about the implementation of the Jobs for Veterans Act.
I am proud that the Committee has chosen to tackle the
issue of veterans employment. Holding a hearing on the
implementation of JVA is a wonderful start this year. I am
hopeful that we will expand upon this hearing to investigate
other areas involving veterans employment, such as the
Uniformed Services Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act. We
must make certain that we are doing all we can to protect the
rights of our service members who have set aside their lives to
serve our country.
Several years ago, Secretary Principi, you chaired the
Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans
Transition Assistance. That Commission made several
recommendations for improving employment and training. I hope
that you will discuss these recommendations today.
GAO recently published that a third of our States reported
that local accountability had either lessened or not improved
as a result of the Jobs for Veterans Act. I agree that States
need flexibility to serve their veterans population. However,
States must provide accurate employment data so the Department
of Labor can properly conduct oversight. I want to hear from
the Department of Labor what can be done to rectify the
situation.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this, and I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Craig. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
Let me turn to Senator Isakson for any opening comments he
would like to make. Johnny?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. I want to thank you, Chairman Craig, and I
want to take this opportunity to thank the panelists for being
here. At this particular time in our Nation's history, this is
probably as important a topic as we could be discussing, given
the number of veterans who are deployed.
But I would like to take a little bit of a different tack,
Mr. Chairman, if I can, and I know I will be accused of maybe
being what we refer to in sports as a ``homer'', but I want to
refer everybody to the cover of this month's American Legion
magazine and the picture of Bob Nardelli, who is the president
of the Home Depot. And I want to talk for one second about a
gentleman by the name of Ted Daywalt in Georgia.
First of all, the Home Depot--this happens to be an
interview about their program, where last year they donated 1
million man-hours and millions of dollars to repair homes of
veterans who are deployed around the world, for their spouses
and their children. But in addition, the Administration
recently gave Home Depot its highest award for their employment
program of veterans, which, among other things, includes
obviously what we expect, which is re-employment, but it
includes the extension of benefits, extension of training,
compensation, equalization, and everything a person would hope
an American veteran would receive from American industry.
As we look to Government programs to solve these programs,
and certainly we should, I encourage us to use these programs
to be catalysts in American industry to show vividly and
demonstrate what corporations in America are doing. The Home
Depot is not the only one. But I would submit to you there are
a lot of corporations that could do better. And sometimes it is
out of sight, out of mind. So as we have this hearing, I hope
it will encourage us to do that.
Secondly, I don't have a picture or a magazine about a
gentleman by the name of Ted Daywalt, but I just want to pay
tribute. He is a veteran who started a business about 9 years
ago to employ veterans and find jobs for veterans and match
veterans with jobs. People like that who are out there and
those businesses that, in fact, do it should equally be
encouraged and served by the Veterans Administration to help
them in those placements because there is no better way to find
a job than to match it with an activist in the community and an
employer in the same community.
In my testimony today I want the record to reflect my
personal deep appreciation to the Home Depot for not its token
commitment, but its complete commitment to the veterans of the
United States of America, both those who are activated that
work for them, as well as those they employ who return from
active duty who didn't work for them before.
If I remember correctly, the number is in the tens of
thousands of employees. We are not talking about a handful of
people. We are talking about tens of thousands of employees who
are service members--Guardsmen, Reservists, and active duty--
who have been touched.
Then equally to those community activists, former veterans,
who established their life's business to find veterans jobs and
employment in their communities upon returning home. The two
best programs we could have for veterans in our country is a
corporate America that is equal to the task of providing
employment when they return and extending benefits while they
are away and activists with veterans experience who act as job
finders in our local communities.
I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Very well spoke, Senator Isakson. Thank you
for citing that example. It is really a stellar example.
Let me turn now to Senator Patty Murray. Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Akaka, for calling this really important hearing. I want to
join in welcoming all of our panelists. Secretary Principi, it
is great to see you again. Assistant Secretary Ciccolella,
thank you so much for your work as well, and Dr. Nilsen.
When our veterans come home from fighting for us, they need
to come home to a community that will support them and they
need to come home to a job. That is really why this hearing is
so important. When it comes to veterans employment, I get to
see the challenge from three different perspectives.
First, as the Ranking Member on the Employment and
Workplace Safety Subcommittee, working with Senator Isakson,
overseeing the efforts of the Department of Labor to help our
veterans. Also, of course, serving on this Committee, where we
look at how the VA is meeting its veterans' needs. And finally,
when I am home in Washington State, talking with veterans on
the ground and hearing from them firsthand what the real
challenges are on the home front.
I have held 8 roundtables and 1 VA field hearing in
Washington State, and no matter where I was or what we focused
on, there was one clear message I was hearing from our
veterans, and that is veterans are falling through the cracks.
Whether it is getting health care or getting job training,
veterans are falling through the cracks today, and I want to
give you some examples.
Last August, in Longview, Washington, I met a veteran who
had been discharged from the National Guard 2 months earlier
without any financial benefits. He couldn't find a job. He was
married, had three kids, and he told me he had to go sign up
for food stamps. That is a man who served our country with
honor, and he was falling through the cracks.
Guard members have told me that they are falling behind at
work after they have been deployed for a year or more, and they
don't know how to get the training so they can catch up again.
Other Guard members have been telling me about employers who
are nervous about hiring Guard members since they might have
medical issues, or they may be deployed again in a short time.
One Guard member at our Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
hearing testified that he lost his business because the SBA
programs that are intended to help small business owners and
the self-employed didn't work with the realities of
mobilization. I have also heard about the Transition Assistance
Program, the TAP program, doesn't work within the 3- to 7-day
timeframe that our Guard members are given to separate, and it
is too focused on the needs of traditional forces, which is a
finding that has been confirmed now by a GAO report as well.
The good news is there are steps that we can take. Three
years ago, we looked at the problems that veterans were having
finding jobs, and we saw a broken system. After a lot of work,
we did pass the Jobs for Veterans Act. That goal was to
streamline the programs and bring together the stakeholders to
help veterans find employment.
I think that law made a lot of progress and it is a great
thing. The system is working better than it did in 2002. But
since we passed that law, a lot of things have changed, and the
veterans job system hasn't kept pace. If we are going to help
meet the current challenges, we need to recognize three facts.
First, on sheer numbers, we have got a growing veterans
population, and those large numbers are outpacing the support
that we have in place. Compared with past wars, we have more
disabled veterans who are coming home and they are having a
very hard time finding a job.
Secondly, many of the veterans who are now coming home are
members of the Guard and Reserve, and they face some very
unique challenges that we are not equipped to handle today.
About 40 percent of those serving in Iraq today are in the
Guard and Reserve. Many of those Guard and Reserve members,
when they come home, live far away from a military base or any
other kind of support center, and help is not just around the
corner. So we have got to do a better job of outreach.
A challenge they often have is the very short transition
period that they have. If we don't get them the help that they
need in that very short window, they often fall through the
cracks.
Third, many of our returning veterans don't know that help
is available, and the people who can help them don't know that
veterans need their assistance. I heard from Guard members who
were struggling and didn't know that help was even out there.
Last October, a few months ago, I met with a group of
veterans and employment leaders in Vancouver, Washington, and
at the table, there were two Washington National Guard members,
Nathan Rivera and Doug Dupee. Nathan had come back from the
Middle East in March, a number of months earlier, 8 months
earlier, and still had not found a job. Doug told me he had
given up finding a job and finally had just gone back to
school.
Sitting at the same table was a man named Jerry Bloss. He
is a veterans representative, working at the Work Source Center
there in Vancouver. Jerry sat there and listened to these two
stories and he turned and said to them, ``I could help you
guys, but I didn't know how to find out.''
Mr. Chairman, we need to do a better job of connecting
those veterans who need help with the people who are on the
ground ready to help them. Mr. Chairman, it is great that we
have made some progress in updating a jobs program from the
cold war era to the needs of 2002, but now I firmly believe
that we need to bring this up to date to meet the challenges
that we are now facing in 2006. Otherwise, we are going to
continue to see our veterans fall through the cracks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Senator, thank you for that very thorough
statement. It is appreciated.
Senator Burr, any opening comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD M. BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, I will. I am not sure that I
can add to what my two colleagues before have said. Let me
welcome our panelists today. Secretary, it is good to see you.
I sit here in hopes that one day we won't need legislation
for U.S. corporations that are successful to realize the reason
they are successful is because so many brave people have made
sure they could do what they do. This weekend, I was at a
university event where Magic Johnson was honored and clearly a
star.
As he stood up to be recognized for the over 30,000 jobs he
has created in 80 cities for minorities, he said, ``I shouldn't
be here receiving recognition for something I am obligated to
do, and that is to go back to the communities that I grew up
in, the communities that supported me in my career, and to use
my rewards to touch somebody else's life.''
We need the Act that we have got in place, but we also need
a spirit in this country where we all go out and remind
American business companies why they have the ability to
operate and to be successful. They should fall all over
themselves to absorb these individuals as they come back.
I commend Home Depot and the other companies. Johnny is
right to highlight them. They have been really a leader in it.
I commend companies like Wachovia that have really handled the
call-up of Reservists and Guard, and they have done it in a way
that has not only made sure that they had a job when they came
back, but that their families were taken care of while they
were gone.
Sometimes we are given challenges to make us stronger. I
hope that is what we are going through now. At the end of this
process, we will see if American business responds to the
challenge.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Senator, thank you.
Senator Salazar, thank you for joining us. Any opening
comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Craig, for holding
this very important hearing. To our distinguished panel,
welcome this morning. Particularly former Secretary Principi,
it has always been an honor to watch your work and to know of
your great service to our country in so many different
capacities.
When our service members enter active duty, they are often
uprooted from their lives, their families and their
communities. They are also removed from their previous jobs
and, in many cases, this change becomes a permanent case.
The transition from a life of relative normalcy to a life
of military service is an extremely difficult one to make, but
most of our brave men and women in uniform make it willingly,
in full recognition of the sacrifice they are about to make for
our country.
As we watch these same members of our military return from
Iraq and Afghanistan, we sometimes overlook the drastic nature
of the transition that they face. That is why it is so
important that we have this hearing today. As difficult as it
is for someone who is 18, 19, or 20 years old to leave their
home and family to enter a dangerous theater of war, it can be
equally difficult for them to return to the lives that they
have left behind.
Among the more difficult aspects of this transition is the
need to once again come home to find a way to make a living.
Often, the jobs they left behind are no longer there. And now,
several years later, the experience they had gained before has
lost its value.
Our Government and our Nation owes it to these veterans to
help provide them with the resources and guidance they need to
find good jobs. That is why we have the Veterans' Employment
and Training Service Program. That is why Congress passed the
Jobs for Veterans Act 3 years ago. And that is why we are
holding these hearings today to make sure that we fulfill our
promise to the Nation's veterans.
I am troubled, frankly, when I look at the chart that is
behind the Chairman today, and I compare the unemployment rates
that apply to veterans and nonveterans. When I look at an
unemployment rate of 14 to 15 percent for our veterans, it is
troublesome to me. Because when I look at those kinds of
unemployment rates, it reminds me of the rural parts of my
State of Colorado, which sometimes are the most difficult
places to find any kind of economic revitalization.
Those kinds of unemployment rates, when you compare it to
the unemployment rate of the Nation at 5 percent, seem to me to
be totally unacceptable. How can we have an unemployment rate
for America where we are at approximately 5 percent, and yet
among the people who have served our Nation, who have
sacrificed so much for our Nation, the unemployment rate among
veterans is 15 percent?
I believe that we can do better and I believe that the
Veterans' Administration, working with this Committee, has all
the right intentions. If there is anything that we can do to
make sure that we bring that red line down to a point where it
is more close to the unemployment rate of the Nation as a
whole, I believe that we would be doing a great service to our
country.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on
this very important subject.
Chairman Craig. Senator Salazar, thank you very much.
Senator Obama, any opening comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, my
colleagues, Mr. Secretary, and the other panelists. I want to
very much thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka, for
calling this hearing.
At the outset, let me say that the Labor Department's VETS
program does terrific work across the country. You have got a
network, as I understand it, of 2,400 veterans employment
specialists. The reports I have heard back is that VETS
provides comprehensive services to help veterans get and keep
high-quality jobs.
But we are here today to perform a check-up of the program
3 years after Jobs for Veterans Act went into effect, and I
have a particular interest in this check-up because it appears
that there are some problems with Illinois's veterans
employment system.
As I understand it, Illinois ranks dead last in the Nation
for the job placement rate of its veterans. Dead last.
According to Labor Department statistics, only 34 percent of
veterans who seek assistance are finding jobs. That is almost
half the national average of 62 percent and 9 points lower than
the second-worst State.
Obviously, I was shocked to hear this news because I think,
as you are all aware, Illinois is a State with a proud
tradition of serving veterans. We have a lot of talented,
dedicated, and hard-working people who work for the State of
Illinois on this issue. They care about veterans, but for some
reason, the system is not translating into measurably good
performance.
I believe there are two major causes for this problem. One
is funding. The second is accountability. To the funding issue,
since the JVA changed the formula, Illinois's funding has
dropped 18 percent, which has led to a reduction in staff and
reshuffling of workers between offices. This is a problem that,
from what I gather, is shared by a number of other States.
I was just reviewing some statistics here, and it appears
that there are at least 31 States who saw problems with respect
to funding as a consequence of the bill that was passed, which
I wasn't here when the bill was passed. I am trying to figure
out how that could have occurred. But an 18 percent drop is
obviously going to have some impact on performance. My
understanding also is that 8 of the 10 lowest performing States
saw their funding decrease significantly since 2003.
We have got a major funding issue, but the problem is more
than just reduced funding. States like North Dakota and
Vermont, which each saw their funding drop by a third, still
remain among the highest performing States in the Nation.
While, obviously, Illinois is a big industrial State and has a
different set of problems than small States like North Dakota
and Vermont, and although I think money makes a difference, I
am not somebody who is suggesting that we just throw money at
the problem. So that leads to a second issue, the issue of
accountability.
One of the JVA's most important goals was to improve
accountability in the system. It was supposed to make it easier
for States to keep track of local performance and, in turn, for
the Feds to keep track of the States. The GAO reported in
December that in this crucial area, the Labor Department is
coming up short. A third of the States said monitoring has not
improved since 2003, and 21 States couldn't even keep track of
local-level data.
In the case of Illinois, the Labor Department argues that
Illinois is actually doing much better than its raw numbers
show and that the low job placement rates just reflect a
difference in counting methods. But we would be wrong, I think,
to minimize this problem as a minor accounting issue. If we
can't quantify the problem, we are not going to be able to
address any problems that may be there. And unfortunately, for
too long, the Labor Department doesn't seem to have a handle on
what is going on in Illinois.
I am encouraged by steps that the Labor Department has
recently taken, but I think much more needs to be done. Step
one, I guess, would be to get the numbers right. Part of the
goal originally of the JVA was to standardize in some fashion
how we are tracking this stuff. So I am going to be interested
in figuring out why that is not happening.
It means figuring out, as Senator Murray eloquently stated,
which veterans are falling through the cracks and developing a
plan to improve services across the board, but particularly to
target those who are in most need of help.
One last point, Mr. Chairman, I think we also have to draw
attention to the problem of homelessness among veterans, which
is so intimately tied to employment. Elaine Knox of the
Illinois Department of Employment Security said you can't
concentrate on employment if you don't have a home. This year,
there are 54,000 veterans--54,000 veterans--who will sleep on
the streets of Chicago. Fifty-four thousand in one city in
America, and that is just a remarkable number.
I have introduced legislation to begin addressing this
problem. I appreciate the Chairman's commitment to hold
hearings on this issue later this year. But I think it is
important for all of us to note, as we are talking about the
issue of employment, that it is going to be intimately tied
with stabilizing the lives of a lot of these veterans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Senator, thank you. I think, to this panel,
you have heard the concerns, and there are many. That is why we
are here. We believe the program is substantially
underperforming, and we want to know why. So we thank you for
being with us today.
Let me turn to the gentleman who started this ball rolling
in looking at veterans employment. That started 10 years ago
with the Transition Commission. Mr. Secretary, again, welcome
before the Committee. The microphone is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, FORMER SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Secretary Principi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Senator Akaka and Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to
be back before you, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Akaka, and all the Members, for holding this hearing and for
everything you do for our Nation's veterans.
Senator Isakson, I just want to comment on Home Depot as
well. As Secretary, I learned firsthand about Home Depot's
commitment to veterans, and I really do believe they are a
corporate model that should be emulated across the country.
I know it comes from Bob Nardelli's heart because I
remember he told me one day that his dad, who is a decorated
World War II veteran in his late eighties, volunteers every day
at the VA medical center, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. I think
it is that commitment that has made him such a force in
veterans employment issues and I think it is shared by others
as well. But I did want to mention that because he is such a
great man.
Our Nation depends upon the willingness of the men and
women who embody our armed forces to assume the risks and
endure the hardships necessary to secure our freedoms and
independence, and those risks and hardships are difficult
realities at all times and in all places. But they are
magnified now for the service members--active and Reserve,
Guard--who have responded and are now responding to the demands
of the global war on terror, particularly in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Just over a year ago, while serving as Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, I was privileged to share the holiday seasons
with our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and the
Persian Gulf, and I know that I share the same belief of every
Member of this Committee when I say that they are truly
America's best.
Not diminishing my fellow Vietnam veterans and all veterans
of previous wars and peacetime service, I think we have fielded
the very best in courage and compassion on the battlefield of
Iraq and Afghanistan, and they certainly make me proud to be an
American.
Just as those men and women assumed an obligation to our
country when they took their oaths of enlistment, so did our
country assume a reciprocal obligation to them when they
complete their service. When they set their uniforms aside,
assume the honored title of veteran, we owe them the assistance
they need to make a successful transition to civilian life. And
suitable employment is the key to a successful civilian life.
A veteran with a good job is a veteran with a head start in
overcoming the ``slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'' and
in laying a firm foundation upon which he or she can build a
life and a family. Conversely, a veteran searching for a job is
a veteran burdened with an unnecessary handicap in dealing with
the challenges of life and a veteran attempting to build a
future on a foundation of sand.
That is why the Congressional Commission on Service Members
and Veterans Transition Assistance placed such a heavy emphasis
on reform of Federal programs assisting veterans in obtaining
their first jobs and again why I commend this Committee for
holding this hearing.
The Transition Commission's research led us to believe that
the organizational structure for veterans employment programs
was not conducive to success. And back then, if I recall the
statistics correctly, the unemployment rate for recently
separated active duty service members was 20 percent higher
than their nonveteran counterparts in the same age group, 20 to
24.
We found back in 1997, 1998 that only 300,000 of the 2
million veterans who registered with the employment service
obtained suitable employment, and only 12 percent obtained
permanent employment. We felt that that was really unacceptable
and that reforms were necessary in this program.
Most importantly, we found that there was little that the
Federal Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training
Service could do to effectively influence outcomes at the local
level because of the statutory limitations with which they had
to work.
I am pleased that the Congress enacted reform legislation
in response to the Commission's findings, and I commend GAO and
the Congress for following up on the effectiveness of that
legislation. While I am not in a position to opine on the
effect of reform legislation or the effectiveness of veterans
employment assistance programs as they exist today because I
really haven't been close to it anymore, I will take the
liberty of suggesting some questions, the answers to which may
illuminate paths the Committee may desire to follow.
Do employment program managers and workers, for both
veteran-specific programs and for programs serving the general
population, have clearly defined goals and performance
standards for placing veterans in suitable jobs? This question
is applicable to employment service processes and especially
for their outcomes.
Have program leadership at both the State and the Federal
level established management information systems that measure
actual verified performance against those standards?
Perhaps most importantly, as Senator Obama pointed out, do
the States hold their local offices accountable for their
outcomes, and does the Federal Department of Labor hold the
States accountable for their outcomes in finding veterans
decent, good jobs upon which to build a successful life?
Are there sanctions for poor performance? Are there rewards
for good performance? Are those sanctions and rewards
effective? If there are States or offices that have not met
standards, what corrective actions have been taken, and what is
the effect of those actions?
While there are virtually limitless nuances to oversight of
a program this diverse and this important, I believe that the
answers to these questions will give the Committee a great deal
of insight into whether the Congress satisfied its obligation
to America's veterans when it enacted Public Law 107-288.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Anthony J. Principi
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony J. Principi, Former Secretary of
Veterans Affairs
Good Morning Chairman Craig, Senator Akaka, members of the
Committee.
Our nation depends upon the willingness of the men and women who
embody our Armed Forces to assume the risks and endure the hardships
necessary to secure our freedoms and independence. Those risks and
hardships are difficult realities at all times and in all places, but
they are magnified now for the servicemembers, active and reserve, who
have responded, and are now responding, to the demands of the global
war on terror, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just over a year ago, while serving as Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, I was privileged to share the holiday seasons with our
uniformed defenders in Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf and I can
assure you that those men and women are America's best; and they make
me proud to be an American.
Just as those men and women assumed an obligation to our country
when they took their oaths of enlistment, so did our country assume a
reciprocal obligation to them when they complete their service. When
they set their uniforms aside and assume the honored title of
``veteran'' we owe them the assistance they need to make a successful
transition to civilian life.
Suitable employment is the key to a successful civilian life. A
veteran with a good job is a veteran with a head start in overcoming
the ``slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'' and in laying a firm
foundation upon which he or she can build a life and family.
Conversely, a veteran searching for a job is a veteran burdened with an
unnecessary handicap in dealing with the challenges of life and a
veteran attempting to build for the future on a foundation of sand.
That is why the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and
Veterans Transition Assistance placed a heavy emphasis on reform of
Federal programs assisting veterans in obtaining their first jobs and
why I commend the Committee for holding this hearing.
The Transition Commission's research led us to believe that the
organizational structure for veterans' employment programs was not
conducive to success. While we found some states provided effective
services to veterans, other states were ineffective. Most importantly,
we found that there was little that the Federal Department of Labor
Veterans Employment and Training Service could do to effectively
influence outcomes at the local level.
I am pleased that the Congress enacted reform legislation in
response to the Commission's findings and I commend the Government
Accountability Office and the Congress for following up on the
effectiveness of that legislation.
While I am not in a position to opine on the effect of reform
legislation or the effectiveness of veterans' employment assistance
programs as they exist today;
I will take the liberty of suggesting some questions the answers to
which may illuminate paths the Committee may desire to follow.
Do employment program managers and workers, for both veteran
specific programs and for programs serving the general population, have
clearly defined goals and standards for placing veterans in suitable
jobs? This question is applicable to employment service processes and
especially for their outcomes.
Have program leadership, at both the state and the Federal level,
established management information systems that measure actual verified
performance against those standards?
And, perhaps most importantly, do the states hold their local
offices accountable for their outcomes and does the Federal Department
of Labor hold the states accountable for their outcomes?
Are there sanctions for poor performance? Are there rewards for
good performance? Are those sanctions and rewards effective? If there
are states or offices that have not met standards, what corrective
actions have been taken and what is the effect of those actions?
While there are virtually limitless nuances to oversight of a
program this diverse and this important, I believe that the answers to
these questions will give the Committee a great deal of insight into
whether the Congress satisfied its obligation to America's veterans
when it enacted P.L. 107-288.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to your
questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to
Hon. Anthony J. Principi
Question 1a. In your written testimony, you suggest that this
Committee attempt to ascertain the answers to several key questions in
order to measure whether reform legislation--the Jobs for Veterans Act
(JVA)--has been successful. The questions you posed include: Do the
states hold their local offices accountable for their outcomes and does
the Federal Department of Labor hold the states accountable for their
outcomes? Are there sanctions for poor performance? Are there rewards
for good performance? And are those sanctions and rewards effective? If
the Committee discovers that the answers to those questions are
negative, should we conclude that fundamental reform is still
necessary?
Answer. If the Committee determines that states are not holding
local offices accountable for veterans' employment outcomes, and that
the Federal Department of Labor does not hold the states accountable
for their outcomes, then fundamental reform remains necessary.
Question 1b. If so, what reforms would you recommend that the
Committee consider?
Answer. One reform the Committee should consider would be
competition for DOL funding to provide employment services to veterans.
The prospect of competition would provide an incentive to state program
leadership to improve service and, in the event that service did not
improve, would provide a mechanism to transfer resources to other
providers better able to provide veterans with the services they need.
Question 2. Attached is an organizational chart reflecting the
Government Accountability Office's best attempt to capture the various
Federal and State entities that administer the Department of Labor's
grants for veterans' employment services. As the former head of the
second largest bureaucracy in government, I am sure you are aware of
the impact organizational structures can have on an agency's ability to
establish clear lines of program authority and accountability. What is
your reaction to an organizational chart like this one?
Answer. More important than an organizational chart are the ability
to establish performance standards and to hold local leadership
accountable for their performance.
The chart indicates that ETA and VETS would be ``accountable for
national performance goals'' and that the ETA and VETS Regional
Administrators would ``initiate corrective action as needed''. The
chart also specifies that the ETA Regional Administrator and the DVET
would have ``program oversight but not supervisory authority over state
and local staff''. The State Workforce Agency would be ``accountable
for state performance goals.'' First-line employees in the One-Stop
Career Center would be ``accountable to the state agency.''
The key questions unaddressed in the organizational chart are the
mechanisms for that accountability.
Question 3. The report of the Congressional Commission on Service
members and Veterans Transition Assistance recommended that veterans'
employment grants to States be subject to competition from other, non-
State providers. Given your role as Chairman of the Transition
Commission, what did you believe to be the benefit of awarding the
grants on a competitive basis?
Answer. As noted in my response to the first question, the prospect
of competition would provide an incentive to state program leadership
to improve service and, in the event that service did not improve,
would provide a mechanism to transfer resources to other providers
better able to provide veterans with the services they need.
Question 4a. During your tenure as Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
the Administration proposed that the Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative program be
transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and that VA
establish a new competitive grant program. What was your response to
those who suggested that VA should not administer the grant program
because veterans would ``lose out'' on the Department of Labor's vast
infrastructure of One-Stop centers?
Answer. The validity of that concern is proportional to the extent
to which veterans' current access to that ``vast infrastructure'' does,
in fact, meet their needs to obtain suitable employment. The ability to
establish performance standards and to hold local leaders accountable
for their outcomes would likely have more impact on program
effectiveness than the name of the Department administering the
program. However, there is no reason why a statute transferring overall
responsibility to VA could not also require DOL funded ``One-Stop''
centers to provide veterans with employment services.
Question 4b. Do you still believe this to be a good idea?
Answer. VA has no mission other than service to veterans. It has no
non-veteran constituencies competing for attention or resources. I am
confident that, if assigned the mission, and entrusted with the
necessary resources and the ability to hold program managers and
workers accountable for outcomes, VA could and would provide veterans
with excellent service.
This opinion should not be construed as a criticism of DOL since I
do not believe that DOL has, or has had, the ability to hold the
organizations and personnel providing services to veterans accountable
for their outcomes.
Chairman Craig. Tony, thank you very much.
And now let us turn to the Assistant Secretary for
Veterans' Employment and Training, the Honorable Charles
Ciccolella. Chick, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing.
I will keep my oral statement to 5 minutes, and I ask that
my statement be entered into the record.
Chairman Craig. Without objection, your statement will
become a part of the record.
Mr. Ciccolella. I will try to give a brief summary of our
progress in implementing the Jobs for Veterans Act and the
program accountability for the DVOP, the Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program, and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representative Program.
The JVA significantly changed the way in which employment
services are provided to veterans through the workforce system,
and we are now in the third year of its implementation. We
think the law is working well. It is certainly beginning to
work well, and we think that there is a bright future on this
law.
When the JVA first came out, we took a very business-like
approach to its implementation. We knew that it had to be
implemented right away. So we took the larger pieces first, and
we put the issues in priority. We established the funding
formula very quickly for the DVOP and LVER grants. That took
regulations to do.
Some States were, in fact, negatively impacted by the
funding formula. We made every effort to mitigate the impact of
that negative impact.
Working with the Employment and Training Administration in
the Department of Labor and the other Department of Labor
agencies, we implemented the priority of service provisions as
a department. We published general guidance to the State
workforce agencies, and then we followed that guidance up with
very specific program guidance for each of the programs for
which veterans would receive priority of service.
We changed the way in which we monitored State performance
to provide more flexibility to the States to operate the JVA
program, and we publish guidance on the use of part-time staff,
the veteran representative staff.
Some things have gone well, and some things are still yet
to be done. We haven't fully fixed the Federal Contractor
Program requiring these companies to lift their job openings
and make them available. We have not implemented a national
threshold for entered employment from which determinations of
deficiency can be made in the States because we don't have the
data yet to do that. We are still working on those items. And
the States have struggled with the positive incentives issue
because of particular State laws or prohibitions against the
use of cash awards.
But I would like to assure the Committee that the changes
in the JVA have paid huge dividends. If you look at entered
employment rates from 1991 to 2001, you find that they range
from 19 to 32 percent. With the implementation of the JVA and
other significant changes that we made in the Department of
Labor and in the Veterans' Employment Training Service, we are
now looking at much higher veteran employment rates. The
entered employment rate in the last year was 62 percent.
A lot of States are exceeding that average. In fact, only
13 States are not exceeding it, and 4 of those States are very
close. I will not fail to mention that some of those increases
are the result of a better reporting system because we get the
data now from the unemployment insurance wage records that the
employers in the States actually report. But we believe it is
also due to better program administration, accountability, and
leadership.
Every one of our State directors is focused on higher
performance goals, and they have specific instructions to do
that. We recognize that what gets measured gets done. We know
that what counts are real results, and we think we are
achieving that in most States. Not every State is where we want
them to be, but every State has made significant progress.
We still have a great deal of work to do, but we believe we
have a very positive agenda in improving employment outcomes
through the DVOP and the LVER program, just as we continue to
make progress in protecting service members' employment and re-
employment rights and in improving the transition assistance
employment workshop.
We want to work closely with the Committee to continue to
improve veteran employment outcomes in every State, as well as
improving employment protections under the USERRA law and our
transition employment workshops.
I want to thank the General Accounting Office for their
review of the JVA because it has been helpful to us. And with
that, I thank the Committee, and I am prepared to respond to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary
for Veterans' Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor
Chairman Craig, Ranking Member Akaka, and distinguished members of
the Committee:
It is my honor to appear before this Committee today. Thank you for
conducting this hearing on the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service (VETS) programs that provide employment services to our
Nation's veterans and how VETS is implementing the Jobs for Veterans
Act with particular emphasis on performance and accountability.
The enactment of the Jobs for Veterans' Act (JVA), P.L. 107-288, in
November 2002 has resulted in significant improvements in the provision
of employment services to veterans and is showing a positive impact on
veteran employment outcomes. We are starting the third year of
implementing the law and we have already seen major improvements. My
testimony today will describe some of those accomplishments and some
planned improvements for the future.
The JVA substantially changed how the Federal Government interacts
with states to provide meaningful employment services to our veterans.
For instance, the JVA entitled veterans and, in some circumstances,
their spouses to priority of service under job training programs funded
by the Department of Labor (DOL). Additionally, the JVA dramatically
redefined the roles of the veterans' representatives (the Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) staff) and redefined the Federal-state
relationship as a partnership in providing assistance to veterans
seeking employment. Under the JVA, states are required to submit grant
applications to VETS for DVOP/LVER funding, which VETS allocates to
states in proportion to the number of veterans seeking employment in a
state. To encourage improved and modernized employment services to
veterans and to recognize excellence in the provision of these
services, the JVA also authorized VETS to institute a performance
incentive awards program whereby 1 percent of the funds made available
to states could be used to provide incentive awards directly to DVOP
specialists and LVERs, as well as others in the state workforce agency.
Moreover, the JVA required that VETS develop a comprehensive
performance accountability system, including the establishment of
performance standards and outcome measures. Overall, the JVA has
provided opportunities to maximize the flexibility afforded to the
states in providing veterans employment assistance while at the same
time ensuring states' accountability.
First, allow me to briefly describe the impact of the JVA. In a
qualitative sense, the Act has provided the states with greater
flexibility to adapt their programs to the unique needs of local areas
where veterans need jobs and employers are seeking capable applicants.
Our outcome data also indicates progress in helping veterans secure
employment. During Program Year (PY) 2003, which ended on June 30, 2004
and encompassed the first year of implementation, the Entered
Employment Rate was 58 percent for veterans and 53 percent for disabled
veterans. At the end of PY 2004, outcomes for veterans and disabled
veterans showed an increase in each category to 60 percent for veterans
and to 56 percent for disabled veterans. The Employment Retention Rate
for PY 2003 was 79 percent for veterans and 77 percent for disabled
veterans. Just 1 year later, at the end of PY 2004, the retention rate
for veterans increased 2 percentage points. For disabled veterans--
those veterans historically requiring additional assistance to seek and
find jobs, and to remain employed--the retention rate also increased 2
percentage points. This comparison of outcome data demonstrates the
positive impact that implementation of the JVA has had on this Nation's
veterans.
As I mentioned earlier, we are just starting the third year of JVA
implementation. In the first 2 years, we have laid the foundation for
further improvements. Since the passage of the JVA we have:
<bullet> Issued guidance redefining the responsibilities of the
DVOP specialists and LVER staff;
<bullet> Developed training programs that support the JVA by:
<bullet> Addressing the new provisions of the law;
<bullet> Incorporating the changes in DVOP and LVER
responsibilities;
<bullet> Emphasizing the integration of DVOP specialists and
LVER staff in One-Stop Career Centers, as required by JVA; and
<bullet> Disseminating a framework to apply veterans' priority
of service to programs funded by DOL.
<bullet> Trained over 7,348 participants (including state, Federal
and Veterans Service Organization staff) in 224 classes held since
November 2002;
<bullet> Published regulations implementing the JVA-required state
grant funding formula and applied this new methodology to calculate
state grant allocations for fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and
fiscal year 2006.
<bullet> Adopted new outcome-based performance measures.
I'd like to briefly review several of these changes and their
impact. In addition, I will address our plan to implement some of the
improvement proposals made by the General Accountability Office
pursuant to the JVA.
DVOP AND LVER RESPONSIBILITIES
The JVA redefined the roles of the DVOP specialist and LVER staff
allowing for a more general and flexible application. Both positions
can now be appointed by the state on a half-time or full-time basis as
the state determines appropriate, to meet the employment needs of
veterans at the local level. The DVOP specialist is primarily
responsible for providing intensive, one-on-one services to the
individual veteran with an emphasis on the disabled veteran. The LVER's
emphasis is on providing employment assistance to the veteran, as well
as the bigger picture of facilitating employment, training, and
placement services to veterans throughout the workforce system, thereby
connecting employers with the veterans they require to keep their
businesses growing. The LVER also assists in reporting on the character
of services provided to veterans and state workforce agencies'
compliance with laws, regulations and policies regarding services to
veterans. The implementation of these changes to enhance services for
veterans occurred through coordinated workgroups with representatives
from many stakeholder groups, including VETS, National Association of
State Workforce Agencies, state workforce agency management staff,
state veterans program managers, DVOP specialists, and LVER staff.
TRAINING
In response to the new law, we instructed the National Veterans
Training Institute (NVTI) to conduct initial orientation sessions for
all states, to redesign the employment specialist training courses and
to provide readily available information about the JVA on-line, 24
hours a day. These sessions were attended by DVOPs, LVERs, local office
managers, and other state workforce agency officials as well as VETS'
staff.
The Veterans Services Orientation course was redesigned to provide
an overview of the law and reflect the new roles and responsibilities
of the LVER staff and DVOP specialists and how they work with other
state agency staff. The Case Management course was redesigned to focus
on the provision of intensive services primarily by DVOP specialists,
but some LVER staff attend based on requests from the states. A new
course, Promoting Partnerships for Employment, was specifically built
around the new roles and responsibilities of the LVER in the workforce
system. This course focuses on applying labor market information,
working closely with agency partners, learning to be the veterans'
representative for office partnerships, informing other staff on the
requirements under JVA, and developing a public relations plan.
With the changes and new curriculum development, since November
2002, NVTI has conducted 224 classes with a total of 7,348
participants. These participants included:
<bullet> 2,907 LVER staff and 3,158 DVOP specialists
<bullet> 388 other state staff (including management)
<bullet> 447 VETS staff
<bullet> 52 Department of Defense staff
<bullet> 396 members of Veterans Service Organizations
FUNDING CRITERIA
In accordance with the Jobs for Veterans Act, VETS provides funding
to state workforce agencies for the appointment of LVER and DVOP staff
to enhance the services provided to veterans. State grant allocations
are determined using a formula that is based on each state's relative
share of the national total number of veterans who are seeking
employment. In the state plan submitted and/or updated on an annual
basis, the state indicates how veterans will receive priority of
service within that state. The state workforce agencies work in
cooperation with all partners at the state's One-Stop Career Centers to
assist veterans, transitioning service members, homeless veterans,
incarcerated veterans, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program participants.
To further implement the JVA and to be responsive to the
President's Management Agenda, VETS made changes to the provisions of
the fiscal year 2004 Jobs for Veterans state grant application. The JVA
authorized VETS to phase in over a 3-year period the manner in which
funds are made available to states. Accordingly, both the fiscal and
the performance reporting requirements and the reporting systems for
the Jobs for Veterans state grant program were changed in fiscal year
2004.
During fiscal year 2004, VETS shifted the oversight focus from the
former process, based on inspection checklists, to a more cooperative
approach focusing on assistance and staff training. This oversight
shift reflects a stronger emphasis on the partnership between the state
and VETS in ensuring that the needs of employment seeking veterans are
met. To further solidify VETS' vision of ``veterans succeeding in the
21st Century Workforce,'' quantitative performance measures and outcome
goals for veterans are negotiated with the state.
MONITORING
As part of the JVA implementation, the Department and VETS
implemented a comprehensive performance accountability system. The
states submitted their first 5 year plan for fiscal year 2005 and an
annual plan for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. During the year, states
submit quarterly manager's reports on services to veterans which
describe how well the state is achieving its performance goals, and how
veterans' priority of service is observed with regard to intake, job
referral, and other One-Stop Career Center activities. Finally, our
State Directors conduct assessments, which are focused on technical
assistance and needed training, and reflect a stronger emphasis on the
partnership between the state and VETS in ensuring the needs of
employment seeking veterans are met.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
In order to measure the outcomes associated with veterans served by
the One-Stop Career Center system, VETS identified three outcome
measures:
<bullet> Entered Employment Rate;
<bullet> Entered Employment Rate following Staff-assisted Services;
and
<bullet> Employment Retention Rate.
These three measures are applied to the outcomes achieved by all
veterans and to the outcomes achieved by disabled veterans, producing a
total of six measures for which performance targets are negotiated with
each state workforce agency. The target levels negotiated for these six
measures vary widely among the states. However, the establishment of
target levels provides a useful starting point by which Federal and
state partners can come together and develop strategies to improve
employment outcomes for veterans.
In addition to the performance targets negotiated with the states,
VETS also adopted the Entered Employment Rate for veterans and disabled
veterans and the Employment Retention Rate for veterans and disabled
veterans as Departmental performance targets in the Department of Labor
(DOL) Strategic Plan.
To provide a further indicator of performance, VETS initiated a
program of state Grant-Based Performance Measures for outcomes
associated with the services provided specifically by DVOP specialists
and LVER staff.
The measures negotiated with each state incorporate numerous data
elements directly related to the provision of services. Grant-based
performance measures were first implemented in PY 2004. Our initial
assessment of these grant-based measures is that they have provided a
good starting point for assessing the employment outcomes directly
related to the services provided by DVOP specialists and LVER staff.
Therefore, VETS intends to work with the state workforce agencies and
other stakeholders in order to further develop and refine these
measures for PY 2006.
The attachment to my testimony lists these performance measures. We
have recommended to the states that they be used in developing DVOP and
LVER performance plans.
DOL Initiatives:
Just as the Department and VETS have been implementing the JVA's
new service delivery system concept, the Department has been making
major improvements to the One-Stop Career Center system, through which
the majority of DOL employment services are delivered. Because
veterans' employment services operate within the One-Stop Career Center
system, improvements to the system benefit veterans as well as other
customers.
Data collection and reporting is an integral part of the nationwide
One-Stop Career Center system. A major innovation, the Wage Record
Interchange System (WRIS), implemented in PY 2003, has improved the
validity of the outcome data reported by the states. WRIS, which is
funded by DOL and administered by the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies (NASWA), allows states to exchange quarterly wage
data regarding individuals who have received workforce investment
services and match that data across state lines. All states except
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands participate in WRIS. This
new methodology is more reliable in tracking and determining outcomes
on entered employment, employment retention, and average wages.
Another major innovation is the adoption of Common Measures. Common
Measures is a Federal Government-wide initiative that uses the same
definitions across departments and programs to facilitate the
comparison of different program measurements. Under common performance
measures, VETS will track entered employment, employment retention, and
average earnings after participation. Baseline state performance levels
will be established in PY 2005 and goals will be negotiated with the
states in PY 2006.
GAO REVIEW OF THE JVA
As previously mentioned, the JVA required a full review of
employment reforms by the GAO, to include an assessment of the DVOP and
LVER programs. We worked very closely with the GAO on this review. I
would like to take this opportunity to comment on some areas in the GAO
report.
GAO recommends we ``provide states and local areas with clear
guidance and assistance regarding the integration of veterans' staff
into One-Stop Career Centers.'' DOL concurs with this recommendation.
It is essential that DVOP specialists and LVER staff be fully
integrated into the state's One-Stop Career Center system so that they
can assist veterans in accessing the full range of workforce services
available.
To improve DVOP and LVER integration in the One-Stop Career
Centers, DOL has undertaken two collaborative initiatives and has
planned a third. The first initiative, the ``Key to Career Success
Campaign,'' involves collaboration between the DOL and the Department
of Defense. During pre-separation briefings provided at Department of
Defense transitionsites and Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
employment workshops administered by VETS, veterans will be given a
brochure containing a plastic card similar to the cards customers can
get from major grocery chains. The brochure and card contain
information on the One-Stop Career Center system and the assistance
available to veterans seeking employment. There is a toll-free help
line and a service locator web address that will assist veterans in
locating the closest One-Stop Career Center by entering their zip
codes.
The campaign has been initiated to address priority of service
among all training programs funded by DOL. It is intended to help all
eligible veterans with specific targeting to those who have attended
the TAP employment workshop and pre-separation briefing to leverage the
power of the nation's network of over 3,400 One-Stop Career Centers. In
addition, it highlights the acknowledgement of an individual as not
just an individual, but a veteran seeking employment. Veterans who come
into the One-Stop Career Centers can be easily identified and afforded
the priority they so rightly deserve to pursue employment and training
opportunities. This initiative is just getting into full swing, but we
expect it to afford the states a greater opportunity to provide
priority of service to veterans.
A second initiative launched by the Secretary in October 2004
mobilizes One-Stop resources to deliver personalized job assistance and
career development services to veterans and transitioning service
members who are severely injured in the Global War on Terrorism.
REALifelines (Recovery and Employment Assistance Lifelines) is a
person-to-person, face-to-face initiative involving Federal and state
veteran employment staff in a partnership that provides job training,
assistance, and placement services whenever and wherever these service
members need it.
In support of this initiative, VETS' Federal staff collaborate with
the Department of Defense and military service representatives in the
Military Severely Injured Center and throughout the United States,
including at major military medical centers and medical holding
companies on military installations. VETS' State Directors and Regional
Administrators monitor REALifelines in the field. States are responding
well to REALifelines, and DVOP specialists in particular are becoming
intimately involved in this important initiative. A Web-based
REALifelines Advisor (at www.dol.gov/elaws/realifelines.htm) is also
available to service members and provides job training information and
services, as well as referral information.
Finally, VETS plans to sponsor a study during this fiscal year to
examine JVA's impact on employment services to veterans, as well as the
impact of other initiatives focused on improving employment services in
the workforce system. A key objective of that study will be to identify
specific areas in which clear guidance and assistance are required to
improve the integration of DVOP specialists and LVER staff into One-
Stop operations.
The GAO also recommended that the Department ``provide states and
local areas with clear guidance and assistance regarding the provision
of priority of service.'' DOL generally concurs with this
recommendation, but we believe we have worked hard to provide good
guidance to the states in implementing this important provision. While
we agree that many of the programs impacted by priority of service
might benefit from additional clarification or from the provision of
technical assistance, DOL also believes that the priority of service
provision has been implemented more completely than the report
indicates. For example, the Department has disseminated policy guidance
specifying distinct criteria for applying veterans' priority of service
for 15 programs in the workforce system. This guidance is consistent
with our interpretation that veterans are only eligible for priority of
selection to participate in a specific program after they have met all
the other statutory eligibility requirements for that program. Because
of the interaction between priority of service and the specific
requirements of the impacted programs, the application of priority of
service will necessarily take different forms, particularly where
another statutory priority must be applied in conjunction with
veterans' priority of service.
GAO recommended we ``disseminate best practices for incentive award
programs.'' The Department concurs with this recommendation as well.
Best practices for incentive award programs should be shared among the
states. Some states are prohibited from providing incentives to
individuals and, even with a ``best practices'' guidelines, it is still
unlikely that all states will be able to make use of incentive funds
for awards to individual employees. DOL believes that there are
alternatives to the current program, such as a national awards program,
or the recognition of a service ``unit'' in addition to an individual.
Another important recommendation from the GAO is that VETS ``target
monitoring results for program improvement.'' The Department agrees
with this recommendation. In the past year, DOL has taken a significant
step to improve coordination of monitoring activities. For instance, we
have identified VETS field staff as regional accountability contacts.
These staffs actively participate in bi-weekly conference calls hosted
by DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA). In conjunction
with ETA's Regional Accountability Specialists, these VETS staffs are
responsible for working with state workforce agencies staff regarding
performance measurement of employment services for veterans. Linking
regional accountability specialists from both agencies provides the
foundation for jointly planning and conducting monitoring visits and
jointly enforcing corrective actions as needed. To support these joint
efforts, we intend to revise the monitoring guide for Jobs for Veterans
grants by focusing on quality of service and accountability of
performance.
PART
During 2005, the DVOP/LVER program was evaluated using the Office
of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The
results of that review will be published in conjunction with the roll-
out of the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget. I believe that the PART
review has provided us with information that we can use to improve
program performance, both at the national level and at the grass-roots
level where veterans are served.
CONCLUSION
When I appeared before this Committee for my confirmation, I said
that I believed we have a tremendous opportunity to move to a higher
level in helping service members and veterans obtain better training
for better jobs. Our economy is strong, our country needs workers,
veterans are outstanding employees, and there are many new career
opportunities, especially in high growth, high demand industries. We
are working hard to fully implement all provisions of the Jobs for
Veterans Act and to improve the delivery of services to veterans in
America's workforce system.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor takes very seriously the
mandate of the Jobs for Veterans Act and believes we have made major
accomplishments in its implementation. We are pleased that GAO so
noted. I assure you we will work diligently to address, and where
appropriate, take corrective action to fulfill this Congressional
mandate. As always, we stand ready to work with you and your staff.
I am happy to respond to any questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to
Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella
Question 1a. The attached charts, which are based on data provided
by the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS), reflect that there is little difference between the entered
employment rate for veterans served by Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVERs)--61.1 percent--and the entered employment rate
for veterans served by Wagner-Peyser staff--59 percent. Also, non-
veterans served at the One Stop Career Centers have a better entered
employment rate (64 percent) than veterans (60.3 percent). Can you
explain why services provided by staff who are specially trained to
deal with veterans' employment issues do not lead to higher entered
employment rates than services provided by staff without that
specialized training?
Question 1b. Can you explain why--in a system that is supposed to
provide priority of service to veterans and has staff designated solely
to assist veterans--non-veterans are faring better than veterans?
Answer. The services provided to veterans by DVOP specialists and
LVER staff are intended to complement and augment, not duplicate or
substitute for the services available at One-Stop Career Centers.
Generally, veterans determined to be job-ready receive assistance
from Wagner-Peyser staff in accessing core services, whereas veterans
determined to have more barriers to employment are referred to a DVOP
specialist for help in accessing intensive and training services.
Although they have been identified as having more barriers to
employment, veterans served by DVOP specialists have an entered
employment rate higher than that of the more job-ready veterans served
by Wagner-Peyser staff.
On average, veterans who access One-Stop Career Centers are older
than non-veterans who access the Centers. After adjusting for this age
difference, veterans accessing One-Stop Career Centers have a slightly
higher entered employment rate than do non-veterans (61.6 percent vs.
61.2 percent, respectively). Source: DOL analysis for Program
Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) Evaluation, June 2005.
Question 2. One longstanding concern about the DVOP and the LVER
programs has been a lack of accountability. Now, 3 years after the Jobs
for Veterans Act, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
reported that greater accountability is still needed. Do you think the
organization structure depicted in the attached organizational chart
may explain, at least in part, why accountability remains a problem?
Answer. The organization structure chart, created by GAO, correctly
shows the relationship between the state workforce system and the
Department of Labor VETS. We do not believe that this organizational
structure has an adverse impact on accountability.
VETS has implemented a comprehensive performance accountability
system, as required by the JVA. We believe this is an effective,
multifaceted system. It includes the following components:
(a) Five year state plan with annual modifications: This plan,
devised by each state and reviewed and approved by the DOL, established
targets for entered employment and retained employment for all veterans
and disabled veterans.
(b) Quarterly reporting by the states: Managers Reports on the One-
Stop Career Centers' service to veterans and a state level Technical
Report are submitted. In addition, each state reports through the Labor
Employment Reporting System their performance outcomes for entered
employment and retained employment.
(c) State assessment tool: The states provide an assessment of 50
percent of their One-Stop Career Centers on an annual basis. The VETS
State Director then conducts a validation of 20 percent of those
submissions.
(d) DOL/VETS State of the State/Region: As part of the VETS
performance management review process, state directors submit annual
reports on the state of veterans' employment in their state. These
reports include an assessment of how well DVOP and LVER services are
integrated and delivered.
Question 3. You noted in your testimony that the entered employment
rates have increased over the last few years. But, you also noted that
a new data collection system was implemented during that time. In view
of the new data collection method, is it possible to tell whether
employment outcomes for veterans actually improved during that time?
Answer. The new reporting system has improved the accuracy of data
for JVA goals, with a corresponding improvement in program management
and accountability.
Outcome data collected through the new system is now available for
two complete program years. During that time, the rate of entry to
employment increased by 2 percentage points for all veterans (58
percent to 60 percent) and by 3 percentage points for disabled veterans
(53 percent to 56 percent). Similarly, the employment retention rate
increased by 2 percentage points for both groups (79 percent to 81
percent for all veterans and 77 percent to 79 percent for disabled
veterans).
Question 4a. For many years, the GAO and others have recommended
that VETS clearly identify populations of veterans that should be
targeted for assistance and set performance goals that will encourage
service to those target populations. Has this been done? If so, what
are the target groups? Are 20 to 24 year olds targeted?
Question 4b. With the current structure of the DVOP and LVER
programs, is it possible to ensure that state and local service
providers embrace Federal priorities?
Answer. VETS has identified several target populations, and has
established a monitoring system to track outcomes for them. That
tracking system allows the agency to determine whether our programs are
serving those populations effectively or whether increased focus is
needed to better serve them. The targeted populations are:
(a) Recently separated veterans (a group that includes most 20-24
year old veterans);
(b) Returning seriously wounded and injured veterans. VETS, in
close collaboration with the DOD and the VA, has implemented a new
initiative, called Recovery and Employment Assistance Lifelines
(REALifelines), to provide these veterans with personalized services on
a one-to-one basis;
(c) Homeless veterans;
(d) Veterans with barriers to employment; and
(e) Disabled Veterans.
The annual negotiation of performance targets allows for the
incorporation of Federal priorities into state plans.
Question 5a. In 2001, you testified before the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs that ``incentives and
sanctions are both important to improve performance'' and that you were
``investigating other forms of incentives to recognize good performance
or to impose sanctions when performance is consistently
unsatisfactory.'' Does VETS have any meaningful tools for sanctioning
states or localities that either do not perform well or do not provide
the data needed to assess their performance?
Question 5b. Are those tools used?
Answer. VETS has the tools to address shortfalls in performance and
reporting by grantees, including the authority to reduce or withdraw a
grant. We employ the tools necessary to achieve the desired results.
The following tools have proven to be the most effective in
addressing performance and reporting issues:
(a) Placing a temporary hold on quarterly allocations motivates
non-reporting states to take steps to ensure timely reporting.
(b) When a state is identified as a high-risk grantee, VETS' field
staff provides technical assistance in the form of coaching,
collaboration and encouraging state-to-state networking to help the
state remedy any deficiencies.
(c) We have also found that one of the best incentives is
disclosure. Publicizing performance improvements by posting the results
states have attained provides an incentive to sustained performance as
well as a competitive challenge to other States to bring up their
levels of performance.
(d) Corrective Action Plans are employed as necessary to address
performance and other deficiencies within a state. By accompanying
Corrective Action Plans with the delivery of technical assistance, VETS
assures that state grantees are given every opportunity to succeed and
that employment services for veterans are maintained at the highest
possible level.
Question 6. The DVOP and LVER grant funds are non-competitively
awarded to states. The Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance, and later the Administration's 2002 legislative
request, urged the Congress to embrace awarding DVOP/LVER grants on a
competitive basis. What are your thoughts on introducing some
competition into these programs?
Answer. By law, DVOP/LVER funds are made available to each state
whose application has been approved by the Secretary in accordance with
the allocation formula established in the JVA. VETS has not considered
awarding the DVOP/LVER grant funds on a competitive basis within a
state as this would interfere with state flexibility.
Question 7a. Last year, the ``entered employment rate'' attained by
states ranged from a low of 34 percent to a high of 80 percent. What
accounts for the huge variations in state performance? And what
measures have been taken to address those variances?
Question 7b. What leverage--if any--does VETS have over state or
local service providers that either are performing poorly or not
providing reliable data for assessing their true performance?
Answer. We find that states are highly committed to serving their
veterans. Variations in performance often reflect state and local
economic conditions. VETS staff work directly with a state to resolve
issues related to data reliability and low performance.
We do not believe the 34 percent rate reflects that State's actual
performance.
(a) Rather, the low reported results can be significantly
attributed to the State's data collection processes.
(b) We are working with both DOL's Employment and Training
Administration and the State to resolve these reporting problems.
Question 8a. GAO has reported that 21 states are not reporting
local-level performance data. Does this affect VETS' ability to conduct
meaningful oversight?
Question 8b. It is my understanding that VETS has, in some
circumstances, withheld funding from states that have not submitted
required reports. If VETS has that authority, why is it not used to
force those 21 states to submit the local data?
Answer. VETS negotiates performance targets at the state level, and
holds the state accountable for its overall performance. In all states,
local-level performance data is input into a state data system and
contained in the state data that is reported to VETS.
The JVA does not specifically require states to separately report
performance data at the local level.
Prior to JVA and states implementing new reporting systems, local
performance data was provided and some states continue to make such
data available. However, as mentioned in the GAO review, some states do
not retain the ability to separately identify the local level data that
went into the statewide data.
Question 9a. At the hearing, we heard that 17 states have not
implemented an incentive award program and that other states
distributed as little as $16 in award money. Based on those statistics,
it appears to me that the current incentive program is not an effective
tool for enhancing performance. Is that an accurate assessment? And do
you believe that continuing an incentive program in a different form
would provide states with an effective tool for enhancing performance?
Question 9b. Would linking incentives to employment outcomes for
recently separated or disabled veterans help target services to those
groups?
Answer. Incentive programs have been implemented in most states,
and some have reported that it is an effective tool for enhancing
performance. However, it is clear that some states are not able to
implement incentive programs along the lines that Congress intended.
VETS hopes to extend both the range and the level of success of
state incentive programs by sharing the best practices of those states
that have implemented successful incentive programs.
In addition, VETS will work with those states unable to implement
such programs to explore other options available under existing
authority that are consistent with the goal of state flexibility.
We are looking at this issue very carefully and plan to make
recommendations for change on the incentives awards program.
For those states that are able to implement the incentives,
flexibility exists for states to link incentives to employment outcomes
for target populations, and some states are doing so.
Question 10. You testified at the hearing that VETS has not yet
established a national standard for employment outcomes. Given the
varying demographics and economic conditions around the country, will
it be feasible to establish a realistic, single goal for all states and
localities? Or should some flexibility be built into the national
standard to account for those factors?
Answer. A national standard applied to each individual state might
set unreasonable expectations for those states that are improving on
their relatively low levels of performance. At the same time, such a
national standard might fail to sufficiently challenge high-performing
states to continuously improve their veteran employment outcomes.
Instead of a uniform national standard, a performance band could be
established to include deviations above and below the national average.
States performing above the performance band would be considered high
performers; those within the band would be adequate performers; and
those below the band would be required to develop and implement a
corrective action plan for producing more effective outcomes within a
specified time period.
As soon as sufficient data has been gathered to establish a
national threshold baseline, VETS will implement this provision of the
JVA.
Question 11a. You have testified previously that VETS' mission is
``to reduce unemployment and underemployment among veterans.'' So, in
determining VETS' success, should we look at national trends in
unemployment rates for veterans? And in determining the success of
states, should we look at trends in the state veteran unemployment
rates?
Question 11b. How do you gauge whether VETS is reducing
underemployment?
Answer. At the national level, we believe the most appropriate
criteria for success are the annual performance outcomes of veterans
entering and retaining employment through the One-Stop Career System.
For the year ending June 30, 2005, the outcomes met or exceeded
established targets.
At the state level, the most appropriate criteria for success are
whether their outcome results meet or exceed the target performance
levels established in the State Plans.
Reducing underemployment is implicit in VETS' programs' objective
of placing veterans in the best possible jobs, based on their
individual aspirations, skills and abilities. DVOP specialists and LVER
staff provide priority service to both veterans who are unemployed and
to employed veterans that want to attain higher-level jobs.
Question 12. In its December 2005 report, GAO stressed that
available performance data are not used to target additional guidance
or technical assistance. What, if anything, is done when performance
data indicate that a state or a particular locality is not performing
adequately? Are states required to file corrective action plans?
Answer. States are bound by our grant agreement to provide reports
and to analyze statewide performance against the negotiated State Plan.
VETS also analyzes state performance and has meaningful tools to
address shortfalls in performance and reporting by grantees. Those
tools, which include Corrective Action Plans, are listed in the
response to question #5.
Question 13. In July 2005, you testified before this Committee that
you would work with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration to encourage states to implement the Wage Record
Information System. It is my understanding that this system has some
drawbacks, such as the inability to capture data about veterans who
return to Federal service or who are self-employed. Is that the case?
And what efforts have you made or will you make to compensate for those
deficiencies?
Answer. Every state except Hawaii participates in the Wage Record
Interchange System (WRIS).
We are making progress on capturing data on Federal employment. For
example, 21 states are now participating in the Federal Employment Data
Exchange System (FEDES) project, which provides access to employment
records maintained by the Office of Personnel Management, the
Department of Defense and the United States Postal Service. Another
seven states are negotiating data sharing agreements in order to begin
participation.
WRIS does not capture data on self-employment.
As discussed in the response to question #18, VETS is currently
assessing research initiatives that would investigate the question of
what becomes of those veterans served through the One-Stop Career
System that are not reported as having entered employment. We hope the
results of that research will help us better assess how to directly
address the needs of veterans.
Question 14. As we discussed at the hearing, the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance recommended that
Congress consider transferring certain functions of VETS to the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Then in 2002 the Administration
submitted a proposal to transfer those functions to VA. Would you
provide us with any additional thoughts you have about that proposal?
Is it possible that employment services to veterans could be improved
by consolidating veterans' employment services with other veterans'
services, such as vocational rehabilitation?
Answer. There is no current Administration proposal to transfer
VETS' functions to the VA.
The Workforce Investment System is highly specialized in providing
employment services and providing skills training and linkages to the
jobs and occupations that employers demand. High quality employment
services for veterans benefit greatly from operation within that
system.
The core function of the Department of Labor and its Workforce
Investment System is employment. While it is important that the
veterans' employment programs coordinate with VA programs focused on
veterans' health and benefits, I believe veterans are best served by
the specialized employment services administered by DOL.
Question 15a. Last year, over $500 million was spent on
unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers. Are there any specific
outreach efforts to veterans who are in receipt of unemployment
compensation? Is information about these veterans communicated to the
DVOP specialists and LVERs?
Question 15b. Does VETS use the amount of unemployment compensation
paid as a gauge of its success?
Answer. All states participate in Worker Profiling and Reemployment
Services (WPRS), commonly called profiling. The intent of profiling is
to identify those individuals who are most likely to exhaust their UI
entitlement. In some states, veterans who are identified through
profiling are referred to the DVOP or LVER for employment services.
States often provide a list of UCX (Unemployment Compensation for
Ex-servicemembers) claimants to local DVOP specialists or LVER staff so
that they can proactively contact the service member by telephone or
email and offer direct employment assistance.
VETS does not use the amount of unemployment compensation paid as a
gauge of its success.
Question 16. It is my understanding that the current funding
formula is essentially based on the number of veterans seeking
employment in a state compared to the number of veterans seeking
employment nationwide. The Department of Commerce and Labor in my home
state of Idaho has expressed concern that this funding formula does not
take into account rural or geographical issues, labor market
conditions, seasonal fluctuations, or underemployment in the state. In
order to ensure that states have sufficient funds to meet the unique
challenges in their individual states, should this funding formula be
broadened to include more factors?
Answer. The implementing regulations for the DVOP/LVER funding
formula provide that supplemental funding not to exceed 4 percent (4%)
of the funds available for program allocation may be made available for
exigencies, including, but not limited to, needs based on sharp or
unanticipated fluctuations in state unemployment levels and services to
transitioning servicemembers.
States may request additional funds above the amount allocated
under the funding formula at any time. We recognize that economic and
unemployment conditions projected at the time of the grant application
may not reflect actual conditions. We believe that the ability of
states to request additional funds provides the necessary flexibility
to address exigencies.
The JVA also allows the use of half time DVOP specialists and LVER
staff, and we believe this helps address the challenges of geographic
dispersion.
Question 17. It is my understanding that a significant percentage
of service members come from rural communities. Are One Stop Career
Centers an effective means for reaching veterans that return to rural
areas? Do these veterans have access to career counseling by phone or
internet?
Answer. Many rural areas have a half- or full-time DVOP specialist
or LVER staff person who provides services to their local veterans. In
those instances where the state determines there are not enough veteran
clients to justify a part time DVOP specialist or LVER staff person,
priority services are provided to veterans by Wagner-Peyser or other
One-Stop Career Center staff.
Many One-Stop services are available to veterans via the internet.
The CareerOneStop portal (www.CareerOneStop.org) provides an array of
services electronically, including:
<bullet> America's Service Locator (www.servicelocator.org)
provides local office information on more than 22,000 local locations,
including 3,500 One Stop Career Centers;
<bullet> America's Career InfoNet (www.acinet.org) provides
information on occupations, training required for those occupations,
and financial assistance available;
<bullet> America's Job Bank (www.ajb.org) lists over 1 million job
openings with priority of service afforded to veterans who register
their resumes on-line; and
<bullet> Career Voyages (www.CareerVoyages.gov), a career
information tool providing in depth information on high growth
occupations.
Many states have utilized Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-
Peyser funds to supplement these nationally funded electronic tools.
Veterans and transitioning military personnel can call 1-877-US-
2JOBS or TTY: 1-877-899-5627 toll-free to locate the nearest One-Stop
Career Center.
Many One-Stop Career Centers provide services over the telephone.
Question 18. It is my understanding that no data are collected
about veterans who do NOT enter employment after receiving services at
the One-Stops. Do you believe that information could be helpful? Given
the current organizational structure of these programs, do you have the
authority to require DVOP specialists and LVER staff to collect
additional data?
Answer. Approximately 60 percent of veterans who exit the One-Stop
Career Centers enter employment. We believe data on what becomes of
those veterans who exit the One-Stop Centers but are not reported to
have entered employment might be helpful, and are currently assessing
research initiatives that would investigate that question.
The results of that research will help us better assess whether we
need to collect more information and how to do that.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella
Question 1. In your opinion, should the Federal Government conduct
site visits more than once every 5 years?
Answer. I believe that the existing multifaceted performance
accountability system, described in detail below, is effective. It can
also be adapted to provide enhanced oversight, and provides the
flexibility to perform additional site visits as necessary. Examples of
conditions that might lead to additional site visits include areas
where available Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) positions remain unfilled,
or if process data included in the Manager's Report, described below,
indicates a significant drop in the services provided to veterans at a
specific One-Stop Career Center. Another example of a condition that
might lead to additional site visits is the aftermath of a catastrophic
event, such as Hurricane Katrina. In that specific instance, the VETS
State Directors from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas
conducted numerous site visits to assess operating conditions at
impacted One-Stop Career Centers and related public workforce
facilities.
The comprehensive performance accountability system, required by
the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), includes the following components:
a. Five year state plan with annual modifications: This plan,
devised by each state and reviewed and approved by the Department of
Labor (DOL), establishes targets for entered employment and retained
employment for all veterans and disabled veterans.
b. Quarterly reporting by the states: Local level Managers' Reports
on the delivery of services to veterans at One-Stop Career Centers and
a state level Technical Report are submitted. In addition, each state
reports their performance outcomes for entered employment and retained
employment through the Labor Exchange Reporting System. Beginning July
1, 2006, states will also be required to report on the average earnings
of participants who enter employment.
c. State assessment tool: The states provide an assessment of 50
percent of their One-Stop Career Centers on an annual basis. The VETS
State Director then conducts a validation of 20 percent of those
submissions. VETS State Directors have the discretion and the authority
to conduct additional site visits wherever problems are suspected. In
addition, where problems exist, it is common for the VETS State
Director to schedule regular site visits until satisfied that the
problem has been resolved.
d. DOL/VETS State of the State/Region: As part of the VETS
performance management review process, State Directors submit annual
reports on the status of veterans' employment and training services in
their state. These reports include an assessment of how well the DVOP
and LVER services are integrated and delivered.
Question 2. What, besides priority of service, is VETS doing
specifically to address the 15 percent unemployment rate of younger
veterans? I would hate to see a young person who served this nation
honorably contending with issues of unemployment when he or she
separates from the military.
Answer. I share your conviction that no young person who has served
in the military should struggle with unemployment upon returning to
civilian life. VETS has a number of strategies to help young veterans
get good jobs quickly:
a. Research indicates that service members who participate in the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) employment workshops find their
first post-military job an average of 3 weeks sooner than those who did
not attend TAP. Therefore, VETS is working to increase the number of
troops that participate in TAP employment workshops. In addition, we
are exploring with DOD the possibility of increasing the length of the
TAP workshops from two and one-half days to 3 days in duration.
b. Our Hire Vets First campaign is a national outreach campaign
connecting employers with job-seeking veterans.
c. The nation's One-Stop Career System provides priority of service
to all veterans in accessing employment and training programs. DVOPs
and LVERs deployed throughout the System assist veterans in identifying
and accessing the services they need.
d. VETS will continue to target recently separated veterans through
the Veterans' Workforce Investment Program.
e. VETS is collaborating with the Department of Veterans Affairs on
research that will lead to a better understanding of the employment
challenges faced by young veterans.
f. VETS' REALifelines program provides one-on-one employment
assistance to wounded and injured transitioning service members and
families to assist their reintegration into the civilian workforce.
These services are supplemented by an on-line employment law advisor
(elaws Advisor) that provides access to valuable on-line resources and
contact information for employment assistance in each state
(www.dol.gov/elaws/REALifelines.htm).
Question 3. Much of our focus is on services for newly separated
veterans. In my home state of Hawaii veterans of the first Gulf War and
the Vietnam War are coming in for retraining. What specifically is VETS
doing to reach out to some of these older veterans?
Answer. VETS and its State Workforce Agency partners conduct
ongoing activities to reach out to veterans who served in prior
conflicts. For example, during the past 3 months, VETS staff and DVOP/
LVER staff from the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
(DLIR) attended 30 meetings at Veterans' Service Organizations and at
Veterans' Centers to reach out to veterans of all ages and from all
conflict eras.
During January, VETS staff and DVOP/LVER staff participated in a
job fair in Honolulu that was attended by 180 employers and over 3500
applicants. Similarly, the VETS State Director's recent appearance on
local TV helped to ``get the word out'' to veterans of all ages. In
addition, the Helmets to Hard Hats program will be reactivated this
spring and summer on Oahu with strong support from the local
construction trades unions, DLIR and VETS.
Question 4. Why is there no coordinated oversight among Labor
agencies responsible for implementing the Jobs for Veterans Act's
reforms?
Answer. VETS and DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
are coordinating their oversight of the Jobs for Veterans Act's
reforms. Initially, this coordination was focused at the national
level, with the development of guidelines for implementation of
priority of service. Currently, the focus of that coordination has
shifted to the regional level. Since ETA's six administrative regions
include designated regional performance specialists, VETS recently
assigned regional office staff members to serve as VETS' counterparts
to those specialists. The focus of this coordination will shift next to
the state level, as ETA and VETS initiate coordinated monitoring of
State Workforce Agency performance.
Question 5. I am very concerned with the unavailability of local
performance data. This has weakened Federal oversight. Do you suggest
can be done to rectify this situation?
Answer. In all states, local-level performance data is input into a
state data system and contained in the state data that is reported to
the Department of Labor. As mentioned in the GAO review (Veterans
Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve
Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans'
Employment Services, GAO-06-176, December 30, 2005), some states do not
have the ability to separately identify the local level performance
results that went into the statewide performance data. We do not
believe that this weakens Federal oversight. VETS' and State staff use
internal state systems to evaluate process data, such as services
provided and veterans served, to identify potential problems. Note this
data is different from state performance outcome data, from which local
performance results might not be separately identifiable. VETS
negotiates performance targets at the state level, and holds the state
accountable for its overall performance. However, sufficient local-
level process data are available to support VETS' Federal oversight
responsibilities.
Question 6. In some states, including Hawaii, the law prohibits the
use of the Jobs for Veterans Act's monetary incentives. For these
states are there better uses for the incentive money?
Answer. Incentive programs have been implemented in most states,
and some have reported that it is an effective tool for enhancing
performance. However, it is clear that some states simply are not able
to implement incentive programs along the lines that Congress intended.
VETS hopes to extend both the range and the level of success of
state incentive programs by sharing the best practices of those states
that have implemented successful incentive programs. In addition, VETS
will work with those states unable to implement such programs to
explore possible options available under existing authority that are
consistent with the goal of state flexibility.
Flexibility exists for states to link incentives to employment
outcomes for target populations, and some states are doing so. We are
looking at this issue very carefully and we plan to make
recommendations for change on the incentives awards program.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama to
Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella
Question 1. Illinois ranked dead last in the Nation with an Entered
Employment Rate of 38 percent. I understand there were some accounting
problems that make those dismal numbers inaccurate. Could you briefly
explain those problems, and what steps labor has taken to fix them?
Answer. Two major reporting problems contributed to Illinois' low
Entered Employment Rate (EER).
The first results from a legal opinion, issued by the State,
stating that job seekers need not provide their Social Security Number
(SSN) when registering for employment services. This resulted in
missing SSNs for approximately 20 percent of the Illinois Department of
Employment Security's (IDES) registrants. Since those who enter
employment are identified by using their SSNs to match registrant
records to employer wage records, those registrants who do not provide
their SSNs cannot be matched. Therefore, in calculating the EER, they
are not included among those entering employment, even though they may
have found jobs. The IDES Director has asked for a review of this legal
opinion.
In addition to not receiving credit for registrants that entered
employment but did not provide their SSN at registration, Illinois has
also not received credit for registrants that did provide their SSN but
entered into employment in another state. A number of Illinois
residents obtain jobs in adjacent states with IDES assistance. Wage
records from other states can be obtained through the Interstate Wage
Record Information System (WRIS). Illinois began using the Interstate
WRIS in March, and will apply it retroactively.
Once the State corrects these two reporting issues, we will be able
to more accurately assess the outcomes of VETS programs in Illinois.
Question 2. Your staff has said that in fixing these issues,
Illinois placement goes up to around 55 percent. I want to parse that
out a bit. Isn't it true that 55 percent performance rate still among
the worst in the nation? Isn't it true the 55 percent figure does not
account for as many as 20 percent of Illinois Veterans seeking care?
What will Labor do to better account for those missing veterans?
Answer. The national entered employment rate for veterans is 60.3
percent. If Illinois were to have an EER of 55 percent, the state would
be below the national average, but not among the worst in the nation.
The Interstate WRIS can be utilized to capture future outcomes and
can also be used to retroactively capture outcomes for past IDES
registrants that supplied their SSNs and found employment in adjacent
states. However, the problem of missing SSNs is very difficult to
correct retroactively. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of
IDES registrants did not provide their SSNs. Outcome data will likely
never be captured for those registrants who leave the system without
supplying their SSN. This is why it is very important for IDES to
resolve this problem.
We have been working with the State of Illinois for several years
to help it move to a common information system. We will continue to
encourage and assist Illinois in finding ways the State can improve the
outcomes for its veterans seeking employment.
Question 3. My understanding is that you have fixed one of the two
accounting problems starting with the latest numbers from December 31.
You expect to fix the second problem beginning with the first quarter
of this year. So you will have a significantly better numbers May of
this year at the latest. I would appreciate a commitment from you to
come back to me at that time with an accurate accounting of what is
going in Illinois, a plan for accounting for that missing 20 percent
and a plan to improve service for the state's veterans. Can you make
that commitment to me?
Answer. VETS will continue to encourage and work with the Illinois
Department of Employment Security to modernize and improve its data
collection and reporting systems, but it is ultimately up to the State
to change its practices. I will be happy to update you on progress made
by the State.
Question 4. Approximately how many homeless veterans would the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program be able to serve if the program
received appropriations at the full $50 million authorization level?
How does this figure compare to the number of veterans served through
HVRP during the last fiscal year in which such data is available? For
the most recent fiscal year in which data is available, what is the
entered employment rate for homeless veterans served through HVRP?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program served almost 12,500 participants and achieved a 65 percent
Entered Employment Rate with an appropriation of about $21 million. By
doubling our appropriation to the authorization level of $50 million,
we would probably be able to double the number of veterans served.
Question 5. Last year, our colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee instructed the Department to add a module on homelessness
prevention to the TAP curriculum. What steps has the Department taken
to implement this instruction?
Answer. A module on homelessness that responds to the Committee's
instruction has been developed, added to the curriculum of the TAP
employment workshop, and distributed to the TAP facilitators. The
module explains issues surrounding homelessness among veterans and
discusses why veterans are particularly vulnerable. It also provides
resource and contact information for veterans who find themselves
homeless or on a path that could lead to homelessness.
Chairman Craig. Thank you very much, Chick.
Now let us turn to Dr. Sig Nilsen, director of education
and workforce and income security issues of the GAO. Dr.
Nilsen, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. SIGURD R. NILSEN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Dr. Nilsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the findings from our recent report on
how the Department of Labor and States have implemented several
key provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act.
As you know, Congress passed JVA in 2002 to improve
employment and training services for unemployed veterans and
encourage employers to hire them. The ability of our Nation's
veterans to quickly obtain quality workforce services and
employment will become even more important, given the rising
number of those leaving active duty and returning home to look
for jobs.
JVA introduced an array of reforms to two of Labor's
principal employment assistance programs for veterans--the
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, or DVOP, and the Local
Veterans' Employment Representative Program, known as LVER. In
my testimony today, I will highlight, first, actions taken to
improve performance and accountability and discuss any
challenges we identified; second, whether such action has
improved employment outcomes for veterans; and finally, factors
affecting program oversight and accountability.
First, Labor and States have taken action to implement most
JVA reforms, but there are still some challenges. For example,
Labor has issued guidance and conducts ongoing training classes
on new roles and responsibilities for the DVOP and LVER staff,
but it is concerned the current training resources will not
meet the demand.
The majority of State workforce administrators also
reported that staff had transitioned to their new roles, but
integrating them with other staff in the One-Stops has been a
persistent challenge in some areas. Yet we heard from some
staff that it is working very well in their local One-Stops,
while others said little had changed since JVA was passed.
As for JVA's incentive awards program, we have heard--the
program to recognize quality services to veterans--Labor
allocated funding to States for incentives, but 17 States, as
you have heard, including Idaho and Hawaii, don't have such
programs because it conflicts with their laws or policies.
Mr. Chairman, you may know in Idaho, for example, the
incentives were not implemented because of potential morale
problems among One-Stop staff with limited opportunities to
serve veterans. Moreover, States with award programs express
mixed opinions on the effect of incentives on improving
veterans services.
Labor has also established performance measures like those
under the Workforce Investment Act, more recently adopted OMB's
Common Measures as well. However, Labor said that it needs more
time under the new system before all States can be held
accountable to the same standard for veterans employment. The
last estimate we heard was 2007.
Turning now to whether JVA reforms improved employment
outcomes for veterans. Most State officials we surveyed, that
is 33 out of the 50 States, believed that the reforms have
improved the quality of veterans services and their employment
outcomes.
Regarding services, the biggest improvement was in DVOP
staff spending more time on case management, noted by 42 States
as a major improvement. Services to disabled veterans had
similarly improved. State officials also said that employment
outcomes improved, once again, due to the increased
availability of case management.
Finally, Labor's accountability for the DVOP and LVER
programs is weakened by the lack of local performance data. In
our survey, for example, VETS directors in 21 States reported
that performance data from local offices were not available.
Federal oversight is further limited by lack of coordination
among labor agencies and monitoring programs and sharing the
results.
For example, VETS monitors the DVOP and LVER programs,
while ETA--the Employment and Training Administration, another
part of Labor--oversees other programs like the Workforce
Investment Act that also serve veterans. But all these programs
provide services through the One-Stop system. But the two
agencies don't generally work together. Furthermore, Labor
doesn't proactively use monitoring results to determine why
certain States and localities are falling behind and targeting
them for greater assistance.
In conclusion, our work suggests that the reforms embedded
in JVA are moving VETS services in the right direction, but
additional action is needed to enhance employment outcomes for
veterans. To this end, our December 2005 report recommended
that the Secretary of Labor provide clear guidance to better
integrate veterans services into the One-Stops. We also
recommended that Labor's program offices coordinate their
oversight of veterans services and that monitoring results be
used to make program improvements.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to respond to questions for you or other Members of
the Committee at this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sigurd R. Nilsen follows as
an attachment:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.014
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to
Dr. Sigurd R. Nilsen
This letter responds to your questions following the Committee
hearing on the Jobs for Veterans Act held on February 2, 2006. Congress
passed the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) in 2002 to improve employment
and training services for veterans as well as encourage employers to
hire them. The ability of veterans to quickly obtain needed services
leading to employment has taken on a greater level of importance given
the large numbers of service members annually leaving active duty and
returning to civilian life. JVA reformed two of Labor's programs that
focus exclusively on veterans and that are administered by the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). These programs are
the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans
Employment Representative (LVER) program. Through these two programs,
DVOP staff provide intensive services to eligible veterans while LVER
staff conduct outreach to employers, among other duties.
The information below presents each of your questions followed by
our responses which were based on information from VETS, the National
Veterans Training Institute, and our previous work.
Question 1. In his prepared statement, Mr. Richard Weidman stated--
in response to the December 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report--that the ``conclusion that the [Jobs for Veterans Act] has
generally improved services to veterans is based on nothing that could
be considered rational, substantiated data.'' Is that an accurate
assessment? Do we have any objective means of determining whether
veterans have benefited from the Jobs for Veterans Act reforms?
Answer. Our findings are based first, on the responses to our
survey of state workforce administrators who reported that more time
spent on and better quality of case management were among the improved
services provided to veterans. Second, veterans' staff in the one-stop
centers we visited also told us that the increased emphasis on
intensive services generally improved overall services to veterans. Mr.
Weidman is correct in his assessment that VETS does not have good
outcome data. In fact, we have serious reservations about VETS
performance data--both what is being measured and the quality of data
being reported. In short, VETS does not have good data to assess
program performance.
Question 2. Last year, you testified before the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs that ``[a]ssessing how
well [the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP)] and [Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER)] programs are serving
veterans may continue to be difficult due to ongoing concerns about
data reliability.'' How reliable are the data that we have now? Can we
accurately assess performance?
Answer. There are reliability issues with current performance data,
and while VETS has taken steps to improve reliability, additional
action is needed to accurately assess program performance. VETS
officials told us that some states have known data reliability issues
with their management information systems. In addition, while Labor has
established data validation procedures, validation does not extend to
the case file level to ensure that DVOP and LVER staff accurately
record data at the point of service delivery. VETS officials cited
concerns that DVOP and LVER staff were inputting erroneous data for
reasons such as staff not understanding the new definitions of the
performance measures, lack of training on entering data into an
automated system, and inconsistent registration policies. Therefore,
based on our assessment of states' performance data reported to Labor,
we determined that the data were not sufficiently reliable to use for
the purposes of our report.
Question 3. At the hearing, we heard about new performance measures
that have been implemented since the Jobs for Veterans Act. Do these
measures allow us to determine whether services provided by a DVOP
specialist or an LVER had a material effect on helping a veteran find a
job? In other words, is the ``entered employment rate'' a solid
performance measure or does it simply measure coincidence--rather than
a cause and effect relationship between services provided and an
outcome attained?
Answer. The DVOP and LVER programs track 3 different types of
``entered employment rates'' that vary in how closely they are tied to
services received by veterans, but we believe that VETS' performance
measures need to be examined and likely changed given the new roles
that DVOP and LVER staff are performing. For example, there is a
general veteran ``entered employment rate'' that is not specifically
tied to services received by veterans. Another measure--entered
employment following receipt of staff-assisted services--provides a
link between outcomes and services provided by DVOP and LVER staff. In
light of their new role, DVOP staff have an additional measure that
tracks employment following receipt of intensive services such as case
management. However, there are no measures established for LVER staff
to evaluate their performance in conducting employer outreach, a key
role under JVA. Moreover, such performance measures are not capable of
assessing the effectiveness of the one-stop system in serving veterans.
Cause-and-effect relationships can be determined only through a
carefully designed impact evaluation. Examining the relationship
between services and outcomes is risky using simple outcome data
because other factors--such as inherent job readiness differences
between those who need intensive services and those who do not--could
affect any difference observed in the outcomes these jobseekers
achieved.
Question 4. In its December 2005 report, GAO stressed that in 21
states ``key veterans employment data are not collected at the local
level or available through other means.'' Can you explain what data are
not being collected and reported? Does the unavailability of that data
impact the reliability of statewide performance data? Does it impact
accountability?
Answer. DVOP and LVER performance data unavailable at the local
level in 21 states include those reported quarterly to Labor in the
VETS 200 report--the number of veterans applying for and receiving
services and those employed after receiving different levels of
services by specific categories of veterans (including all veterans,
transitioning service members, campaign, disabled, special disabled,
recently separated, and female veterans). While a state may track local
level data for DVOPs and LVERs in its state data systems, these data
are not necessarily the same type of data tracked in the VETS 200
report and are not reported to Labor. We did not assess how the absence
of local level data impacted the reliability of statewide performance
data, but identified and reported other data reliability issues at the
state level that precluded using them to assess program performance. We
did find, however, that the absence of local level data in 21 states
hindered oversight and accountability of local workforce offices and
individual DVOP and LVER staff in those states. In addition, the
absence of individual performance data may compromise the ability of
these states to design a performance incentive awards program based on
a methodology that is objective rather than subjective.
Question 5. In the December 2005 report, you noted that, under the
Jobs for Veterans Act, new performance measures are supposed to be
weighted to provide special consideration for placement of veterans
requiring intensive services. Are the new performance measures weighted
to do that? Do current performance measures encourage service to those
veterans most in need of assistance?
Answer. VETS has not yet implemented a system for weighting the
performance measures as required by JVA to provide special
consideration for such groups as disabled veterans. While VETS issued
initial policy guidance in June 2003, officials told us that the
guidance was abandoned because the weighting system was too complex and
confusing to implement. VETS has not yet specified when it will
implement a weighted performance measurement system.
Question 6a. It is my understanding that some veterans who access a
One-Stop Career Center are assisted by staff funded through the
Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service grant
program and the remainder are served by other One-Stop staff. As
reflected in the attached chart, data provided by the Department of
Labor show that the entered employment rates for those groups are
virtually the same. Do the similar entered employment rates for these
groups suggest that there is little ``value-added'' in having a
separate grant program for veterans?
Answer. The entered employment rates attributable to services
provided by DVOP staff cannot be compared to other one-stop staff
without controlling for differences in the job readiness of the veteran
populations served. Some one-stop staff we met with told us that DVOP
staff are more likely to serve veterans in need of intensive services,
such as case management, while Wagner-Peyser employment services staff
are more likely to serve job-ready veterans who require fewer services
before employment. However, there are no data available to corroborate
this.
Question 6b. Do Wagner-Peyser staff have similar training as DVOP
and LVER staff? Do they provide similar services to veterans?
Answer. Wagner-Peyser staff do not generally receive the same
training as DVOP and LVER staff primarily because they perform
different duties. However, Labor's National Veterans Training Institute
conducted onsite training in Ohio that included Wagner-Peyser as well
as DVOP and LVER staff. In addition, about 20 percent of participants
in some of the classes at the Training Institute are staff other than
DVOPs and LVERs and could include Wagner-Peyser staff, according to
training officials. There is also an orientation class to veterans'
programs designed specifically for other one-stop partners. In
addition, LVERs are responsible for training other one-stop staff to
enhance their knowledge of veterans' employment and training issues and
develop their capacity to provide the full range of services to meet
veterans' needs. Officials from VETS and the Training Institute
recognized the need for broader training of one-stop staff in serving
veterans, but cited difficulties related to the current level of
training resources.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama to
Dr. Sigurd R. Nilsen
Question 1. As Secretary Principi asked in his testimony, do
employment program managers have clearly define goals and standards for
placing veterans in suitable jobs? I, too, am concerned about the
process and outcomes.
Question 2. While collecting information for your report, did you
find that there were clearly defined lines of oversight authority from
the Department of Labor's Veteran Employment and Training Service to
the states?
Answer.
Subject: GAO Responses to Questions Following Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Hearing on the Jobs for Veterans Act
This letter responds to your questions following the Committee
hearing on the Jobs for Veterans Act held on February 2, 2006. Congress
passed the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) in 2002 to improve employment
and training services for veterans as well as encourage employers to
hire them. The ability of veterans to quickly obtain needed services
leading to employment has taken on a greater level of importance given
the large numbers of service members annually leaving active duty and
returning to civilian life. JVA reformed two of Labor's programs that
focus exclusively on veterans and that are administered by the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). These programs are
the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) program. Through these two programs,
DVOP staff provide intensive services to eligible veterans while LVER
staff conduct outreach to employers, among other duties.
With respect to performance and accountability for these two
programs, you specifically asked whether (1) employment program
managers have clearly defined goals and standards for placing veterans
in suitable jobs, and (2) lines of oversight authority from VETS to the
states were clearly defined.
Our responses to your questions are based on information from VETS,
results of our survey of state workforce administrators and directors
of Veterans' Employment and Training, and our December 2005 report,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to
Improve Accountability and Help State Implement Reforms to Veterans'
Employment Services (GAO-06-176).
Performance goals are not consistently established for local
offices or individual veterans' staff even though employment outcome
goals are established at the state level. State workforce
administrators in 31 states reported establishing local office or one-
stop performance goals for DVOP, LVER, or other employment service
staff while administrators in 18 states reported not establishing such
goals. With respect to individual staff, administrators in just over
half the states reported establishing performance goals for DVOP, LVER,
or other employment service staff. In the majority of cases, local
offices either negotiate their own performance goals with the state or
use the same goals as the state, according to Directors of Veterans'
Employment and Training surveyed.
There are clearly defined lines of program oversight authority from
VETS to the states; however, supervisory authority over state
employees--including DVOP and LVER staff--lies with the state workforce
agency. Despite clear lines of authority, however, lack of local
performance data and coordination hinder oversight and accountability
at the local level. For example, VETS directors in 21 states noted that
performance data tracked by the VETS 200 report were not available at
the local level. In addition, Labor's Employment and Training
Administration oversees other workforce programs serving veterans--such
as the Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services--
but does not generally coordinate its monitoring activities with VETS.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. You may also reach me by e-mail at nilsens@gao.gov.
Cindy Ayers served as assistant director on this engagement, and Meeta
Engle was the analyst-in-charge.
Chairman Craig. Dr. Nilsen, thank you very much. I
recommend the report to the Committee for their overview and
reading.
Before we start the round of questions of this panel, we
have been joined by our colleague John Thune. Senator, do you
have any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
testimony of the panel, and thank you for holding this hearing
to examine the effectiveness of programs that are designed to
provide meaningful and rewarding employment for America's
veterans.
I would simply add that that is particular true now in
light of a lot of our wounded, disabled veterans coming back
that we really focus on this issue to see that they have, as
they transition into civilian life, which is going to be
difficult as it is, that they have meaningful and rewarding
employment opportunities available to them.
I appreciate your holding this hearing and look forward to
entering into questions with our panelists. Thank you.
Chairman Craig. Thank you very much, John.
Mr. Secretary, from the commission's overview report and
the ultimate legislation, in part, some of what was recommended
didn't come to pass. Behind you is an organizational chart that
was prepared by GAO. It attempts to capture the various
Federal, State, and local entities' involvements in providing
veterans employment services and administering the DVOP and
LVER grant programs.
As the former head of the second largest bureaucracy in our
Government, I am sure you are aware of the impact
organizational structure can have on an agency's ability to
establish clear lines of program authority and accountability
and that there was one underlying theme in most of the
testimony this morning and a concern by this Committee. Is it
where are we? What are the measurements? How accountable are
we? Why is there underperformance, and why can't we get to it?
What is your reaction to this organizational chart? And the
rest of the panel, you are going to be asked the same question.
Tony?
Secretary Principi. Thank you. You know, Mr. Chairman, I
think more important than an organizational chart--and I think
this is a step in the right direction--are the ability to
establish performance standards in any bureaucracy and to hold
local leadership accountable for meeting those performance
standards. I think that is what is most important.
I do believe that this chart--and I haven't had a long time
to review it--I think it is a step in the right direction to
establish clear lines of authority and responsibility and
holding people accountable. But in the final analysis, you can
have the best organizational charts in the world, but you have
got to say suitable employment outcomes for veterans is the
goal and hold people accountable for achieving those goals,
whatever they might be, and moving on.
Although I agree with Secretary Ciccolella and Dr. Nilsen
that progress is being made, it is obvious from the charts that
you showed that there is still a lot of work to be done. And
hopefully, this chart, this organizational chart, if it is
implemented, will help achieve that goal.
Chairman Craig. Secretary Ciccolella, can you follow that
chart without bread crumbs?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ciccolella. Mr. Chairman, the chart appears to be
accurate. Let me say this about the system and how it works.
One of the intents of the Jobs for Veterans Act was to provide
additional flexibility to the States to run the programs. That
was necessary because in prior years, the role of the Federal
VETS staff was considered to be rather intrusive with sort of a
checklist mentality with regard to local offices, One-Stops,
and because the workforce system is moving more in the
direction of additional flexibility and, in fact, devolvement.
The reason for that is that local officials, the local
workforce investment boards, the One-Stop career centers, which
are designed to be business driven, they know best where the
employment opportunities are, what the training opportunities
are, and how to make or better make the employer-employee
connection.
The responsibility that JVA puts on the Veterans'
Employment Training Service is to hold the State accountable
for its performance. In that regard, we require each State to
have a 5-year strategic plan and an annual plan. That plan has
to address how services to veterans are to be provided. It has
to address how the DVOP and LVER are to be integrated into that
system. It has to address the veteran population, the use of
incentives, the economic conditions in the State.
We either approve that plan, or we work with the State
until we get that plan to where it is responsive to veterans'
needs. That plan then is followed up with quarterly reviews and
with self-assessments that the State does, which we then
validate.
We don't require the local One-Stops to provide local data
because of the reporting systems, and the law simply doesn't
require that we get that information in the field, that our
Federal staff get that information in the field. The reporting
system forwards that information, and we look at it from a
State point of view.
I believe the chart is accurate. I believe it shows where
the supervisory and the programmatic responsibilities are,
where they lie. It probably looks convoluted, and I do agree
with that. But we are dealing with a workforce system that is
certainly a highly devolved system. It operates a little bit
differently in each State by design, and consequently, it would
operate a little bit differently in each locale and area.
Chairman Craig. Thank you.
Dr. Nilsen.
Dr. Nilsen. Yes. Putting this together was no easy task,
tracking the lines of responsibility. But one of the things I
would like to point out about this, or a couple of things, one
is if you look at the left-hand side, that is the Employment
and Training Administration. They oversee and manage the
Workforce Investment Act and a host of other job training
programs. Much of the authority, as Assistant Secretary
Ciccolella said, in those programs goes down to the State and
is further devolved down to the local level.
In contrast, on the right-hand side, you have the VETS
programs, where there is a lot more authority held at the
Federal level and even down all the way to the local level. In
each State, there is a Federal VETS coordinator, who is a
Federal employee, who works to oversee in some ways, has a role
in overseeing the VETS program at the local level.
We found in some of our prior work that this creates some
conflicts at times between the local office managers at the
One-Stops, who are overseeing services to all unemployed people
and figuring out how to help them, when someone else comes in
from the outside working with the DVOP and LVER staff and
providing some direction, which may be not necessarily in
concert with what the local office is trying to do. So there is
conflict there.
But that is very different from the other side. There is
the local autonomy on the ETA side. Local areas decide what are
the main problems, what are the issues, and how are we going to
address those issues?
The second thing is if you look up at the second set of
boxes, at the regional level, there are not really linkages
across between the ETA staff and the VETS staff at the regional
level. It is a responsibility, for example, at the ETA regional
level to oversee the States and their regions and make sure
that they are performing adequately, successfully, and to
identify areas for further improvement, if needed.
We have criticized ETA for not doing enough to help that as
well. But at the same time, they are also working on better
data systems. The other thing that VETS, I think, lacks right
now and is behind ETA on is good quality data on what they are
achieving, the number of veterans coming through the door, the
number of veterans they are helping, who is helping the
veterans? Because right now, the idea is that the DVOP and LVER
staff are supposed to focus on, well, the LVER staff on
employers and the DVOP staff on the hardest to serve veterans
coming in the door and focusing their assistance.
The other members of the One-Stops, be they the employment
service staff or the Workforce Investment Act staff, are to
provide services to veterans who don't have special needs
necessarily and help them get work. But I think their data
systems are not adequate to really capture the full breadth of
people coming through the door and what is happening to them.
Chairman Craig. Dr. Nilsen, thank you very much.
Let me now turn to Senator Akaka for any questions he might
have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ciccolella, the entered employment rate for disabled
veterans in Hawaii as of June 2005 was 49 percent. This figure
represents the number of disabled veterans in Hawaii who came
in for services and subsequently entered employment.
Just 79 percent of those who entered employment stayed
employed. What can be done with your program to help veterans
retain their employment?
Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you, Senator.
I think the first thing that has to be done, Senator, is to
catch the service members while they are still in the military,
in the transition process, as they go through pre-separation
counseling. We don't get all of the service members, for
operational reasons, that the Department of Defense has. But
getting more service members through the TAP, or Transition
Assistance Program, workshop. That is a 2\1/2\-day standard
workshop, and the VA also participates in it for the third day.
That helps a service member make the transition, and it
provides a service member, I think, very good skills. The
troops are very, very pleased in general with that workshop.
Beyond that, Senator, we have taken a very, very close look at
our disabled veterans, particularly those who are the most
seriously wounded and injured. So has the VA. And so has the
Defense Department.
In fact, the Defense Department has a center over in
Clarendon, the Military Seriously Injured Center, and they
track those who are wounded and injured and disabled from the
war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq or wherever.
We have a network of Federal staff, and we use the DVOP,
the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program staff to actually put
them at Bethesda and Walter Reed and Brooke down in Texas and
at Madigan and Tripler. Now you have got Sergeant Jorge up
there, DVOP Jorge over at Tripler. He is spending now 4 days a
week over there.
With the information that DOD has and what they share with
the VA and with what we have, we can actually track these
disabled veterans. We can tell you how many are at Tripler Army
Medical Center, and a lot more information, and we have their
Social Security numbers. So putting that Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program specialist up there several days a week to
make contact with them.
Many of these disabled veterans are not ready to go to work
right away. Some of them are still in the service. But under
our program, our Real Life-Lines Program, we have a commitment
to be there through the workforce system when they are ready.
We proactively contact them, whether they contact us or not.
I think that emphasis that I am talking about is a real
role model. It is a real model practice that improves the
quality of our DVOPs, our disabled veteran employment
representatives across the board, and I think it goes a very
long way toward pointing out that this is what they are
supposed to do, this is what these service members deserve, and
this is what has to be done.
I truly believe that we are seeing some significant
improvement in this area, and that will continue.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Secretary Principi, we are now seeing many of our service
members electing to leave the service, to leave the service
after completing their commitments abroad. Do you have any
additional recommendations to ease the transition from the
military to the civilian workforce that are not outlined in
your last report?
Secretary Principi. No. I think our last report, the
transition commission report outlined excellent recommendations
to assist separating service members. I am dismayed that the
unemployment rate for recently separated service members is
still too high compared to their nonveteran counterparts of the
same age group. That is very disconcerting.
I think, again, it is up to the Committee. If the Committee
finds that Department of Labor and the States are not holding
their respective organizations accountable for suitable
employment outcomes, then further reform is necessary.
I think one option that you should look at is providing
some competition for the funding, the DOL funding that goes to
the States to provide this service, to put some teeth into the
accountability. Hopefully, that would be an incentive to State
leaders and program managers to do the job that they are
getting this funding.
I think back in 1997, when we did our report, there was
like $200 million was going out to the States from DOL, and we
had these incredible statistics whereby only 300,000 of 2
million veterans who were registered are getting jobs. So there
is no accountability, and there is no teeth.
But if you say, ``Listen, if you are not meeting certain
performance standards, you are going to be held accountable,
and we are going to compete those dollars to someone who wants
to come in and provide that service,'' then that might tell the
States, ``Boy, we better do the job.'' And it might provide a
mechanism to provide it to companies that really specialize in
finding good jobs for people. So that is one option you have.
Of course, our report also mentioned transferring this
program to the VA. That is another, more major reform. But
hopefully, DOL VETS can get the job done.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for that response. My
time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Danny, thank you.
Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ciccolella, in the recommendations of the GAO report,
it says, ``To achieve results from JVA provisions regarding
veteran hiring practices of Federal contractors, Labor should
issue regulations as soon as possible to explore effective
methods of enforcement.''
Is there any requirement in reporting right now by Federal
contractors as to their veterans hiring practices? Is there?
Mr. Ciccolella. Yes, sir. Senator, there is. The Federal
Contractor Program has been in effect for a significant amount
of time. This is a complex issue. The responsibility for the
Federal Contractor Program is in three agencies in the
Department of Labor, and it is also with the Federal
contractors because they have the responsibility to list their
job openings with the State employment service.
There are problems with this program. The law changed the
definitions for how Federal contractors report, and we have not
published the regulations with those new changes. One of the
reasons for that is that Federal contractors are required to
report under the old rules and the new rules. So they will be
reporting on the same workforce, that they will be dual
reporting.
We have tried to look at that program and work it out.
Something needs to be done about the Federal Contractor Program
because there simply aren't any teeth in it, to just put it
mildly. There are about 200,000 contractors in our database at
the Department of Labor. About 100,000 are Federal contractors.
They self-identify on that equal opportunity form that they
send over to the Labor Department. Many of them don't do that.
So we don't know whether we are getting all of the Federal
contractors to actually identify themselves as Federal
contractors. Moreover, in the reporting, which my agency is
responsible for, while the report is required, there are no
requirements to hire veterans. They have to list their work
population. They have to list their veteran population, but
there is no requirement.
Senator Isakson. Well, let me interrupt you there in the
interest of time.
Mr. Ciccolella. Sure.
Senator Isakson. Because that is the point I was getting
to. It has been 8 years since I ran my company, so things may
have changed. We competed to provide some Government services,
housing services, particularly Government agencies with regard
to relocation of Government employees and things like that.
I always remember having to answer specifically the
percentage of minority participation, minority employment,
women participation, and it was broken down into subgroups. I
specifically remember that being a consideration in whether or
not the Government did business with me.
Mr. Ciccolella. That is correct.
Senator Isakson. I think those are all important
considerations. I am going to make two quick points. One, it
would seem to me like that would be an equal consideration for
the employment of veterans, and I don't remember that question
ever being asked of me as an employer. Now, again, things could
have changed in the 8 years since I ran the business.
Second thing, and this came up in a hearing we had in the
HELP Committee, I just want to make this point. Most of the
jobs in America are provided by small business. The hardest
thing for a small business to do is to stay in business while
one of its employees has been activated for 12 or 18 months and
have that job waiting for them when they get back.
It is one thing for our great friend Bob Nardelli to
provide thousands of jobs out of the tens of thousands that he
has. It is quite another for a local air conditioning
contractor with 12 employees--and this is an actual example, by
the way--to have 2 of their employees called up in the National
Guard, which is virtually 20 percent of his employment base,
gone for a year, and provide those jobs back.
Do we do anything that is an incentive or a preference to
small business contractors with the Government who hire
veterans? I mean it seems like to me we ought to be doing
everything we can. This is a long question, if it is even a
question. But it seems like we ought to do everything we can to
make it a positive, when small businesses compete for our
business, that those small businesses have a proactive veterans
employment program. Is there such a thing?
Mr. Ciccolella. Again, your company, even 10 years ago, was
required to report under the Federal Contractor Program, and
the problem with that is that there simply is not--there are no
teeth in that program. There is no requirement to hire
veterans.
With regard to incentives or with regard to small
businesses or any business hiring veterans, we have looked at
this very carefully. We have a Presidential Committee, which
has recently expired. But we have gone out to a number of the
trade associations with businesses. We have held job fairs. We
have reached a whole lot of employers.
Today, employers are looking for good employees. We have a
very active campaign to educate the employer community on the
advantages of hiring veterans. Not just their hard skills, but
their soft skills, because that is truly what employers are
looking for.
You mentioned Home Depot. Home Depot, when we started 2
years ago, was hiring 5,000 veterans a year. This year, they
will hire 15,000. We are now looking at Starbucks. It is
100,000 employees. McDonald's. These companies are looking for
small unit leaders. They are looking for young E4s and E5s
because that is what they are. We are not talking about jobs
where you are getting somebody's morning coffee or flipping
hamburgers. These are jobs with career fields.
We are making some progress in terms of educating the
employers with regard to the advantage that they accrue for
hiring veterans. Veterans are good for their business, and I
think many employers are beginning to realize that.
We need to reach more employers so that we can tell those
employers how they make that employer-employee connection. Once
you get into the companies and you get into their communication
systems, then their hiring process will follow suit if they
understand how and what the advantages are of hiring veterans.
Starbucks is going to hire 400,000 people. Now, through the
outreach that we are doing through our Committee, they are
going to start hiring veterans. And they are opening one store
every day worldwide.
So it is just a small example, but I am just trying to
illustrate your point, sir.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Craig. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Obama. I apologize. I, unfortunately, have got to
leave. I just would like to make sure that I can submit written
questions and would ask responses from all of the panelists.
Chairman Craig. Of course, you can. And all of us will be
able to. Time is going to be a little limited today for direct
questions, but several issues have come up. My notes are
producing questions as I listen. So, of course, and we will all
do that. Thank you.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, do you know how many veterans are unemployed
nationwide?
Mr. Ciccolella. We know how many veterans. Senator Murray,
we know how many veterans enter the labor chain each year and
how many are served, and then how many enter employment. So,
excuse me, we know how many enter the workforce system and how
many enter employment.
We know that information, but the information lags.
Nationwide, we don't know how many veterans are unemployed.
Senator Murray. Can you tell me why there appears to be a
drastic difference between the unemployment rates between
veterans who are ages 20 to 24 and nonveterans who are 20 to
24? Is this a problem of the Jobs for Veterans Act, or does it
mean that it doesn't work for them? Do you know why that is
such a huge difference?
Mr. Ciccolella. It is a huge problem. It is a problem that
has been with us for many, many years. We have looked at it
very, very carefully. We are looking at it now with the
Department of Veterans Affairs in a joint study. We know some
of the reasons why this is, but we also know it is a
longstanding problem. We know what the demographic is of the
20- to 24-year-olds who come out of the service.
Senator Murray. Do we need something more specifically to
focus on 20- to 24-year-olds that is not in the Jobs for
Veterans Act today?
Mr. Ciccolella. Senator Murray, I think what we need to do.
As I said, we know some of the reasons why they are not
employed. Some choose not to be employed. Some are waiting for
school. Some will take the unemployment insurance.
There are first-time entrants into the workforce. So any
group of people who are first-time entrants into the workforce,
for example, the 18- to 19-year-olds, their unemployment rates
are extremely high. But we don't know all of the reasons. I
believe we need to get to----
Senator Murray. But there is a huge difference between
veterans and nonveterans numbers.
Mr. Ciccolella. Yes.
Senator Murray. So average 18- to 24-year-olds that aren't
veterans have a much lower unemployment rate than veterans do.
So I am asking why is that? It is not like they are all waiting
to go to school. They are all thinking about different things,
too. It is a huge difference.
Mr. Ciccolella. Well, clearly, the issue of transition and
moving from the military, the adjustment, is a huge issue.
Senator Murray. Well, if you wouldn't mind, I would really
like you to think about that and get an answer back to me
because if there is something we should be doing to change
that, I think we ought to be focused on that.
Secretary Principi. Can I just quickly comment? I recall,
back when the commission was in existence, a four-star Air
Force general overseas told me, he said how difficult it is for
him. He was getting ready to retire, and how difficult it was
for him, a four-star general, to transition into the private
sector. You can imagine how difficult it is for an E3 or an E4
who is stationed overseas to transition and get a job in the
private sector.
And it is also true in CONUS. If you are separated from
Norfolk, Virginia, and you live in Des Moines, Iowa, it is
pretty difficult to find a job. So there are a lot of those,
you know, the----
Senator Murray. Well, I would like to hear from you some
recommendations to focus on that, and I just have a minute
left. And I raise the issue of Guard and Reserve, the high
number of Guard and Reserve. And it just feels like these
programs are not working because of the short timeframe that
they have, the 2 to 3 days.
They are not hearing about it, and it doesn't feel like the
resources are really being allocated to do that. Our One-Stop
shops are telling us that ``can we get the lists of these
veterans so we can help them get employed?'' Can you tell me
what we can do to help these separating service members, to be
more targeted on them?
Mr. Ciccolella. Well, I can tell you what we are doing. Of
course, you know better than anyone in Washington because you
have had a lot of Guard and Reservists come back. You know that
the requirements for them have changed with the longer
mobilizations. They have not only had the adjustment problems,
but they have the employment and the underemployment problems.
I think the things that you are doing in Washington are a good
model.
The issue with returning Guard and Reservists is that when
they come back, they demobilize, and there is a very rapid
demobilization. In my opinion, it is too rapid. That is a time
or within a very short period of time, certainly within 30
days, when many of the Guard and Reservists need to have some--
if they have been on a deployment for 14 months--they need to
have some transition assistance, and they need to know better
how to contact the workforce system in the State, in addition
to the other services that are available in the State.
As it happens, in most cases after they demobilize, they
are off for 90 days before they have a first drill. In that
case, when they have their first drill, their training to go
back over, we have contacted every one of the State AGs in
writing. We follow up with them. We offer transition assistance
programs through the workforce system, and our Federal staff
are also qualified to give this assistance. So we are trying to
press this.
Senator Murray. I think that this is an area that we really
need to focus on, and the TAP program is not working for Guard
and Reserve in particular. And I want to know if you can--I am
out of time, but if you can let this Committee know where we
are in terms of making that transition program work for Guard
and Reserve because of the high number.
Second, just a really fast question. What can we do to get
these One-Stops the lists of veterans who are returning home
that are there, so that they can start working with them? It is
disconcerting to me to sit at a meeting and have a Guard member
tell me he has been out of work for 8 months, and then the guy
who is supposed to be helping him say, ``I didn't know who you
were.''
Mr. Ciccolella. The discharge certificates that come out of
the Department of Defense are, as I understand it, now made
available to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they are
made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in the
States. And I am told that that is the case in Washington.
If that is the case, then there would be no reason why that
information could not be transmitted to the State workforce
agency.
Senator Murray. There are no privacy concerns or anything
else that are keeping these lists from being distributed?
Mr. Ciccolella. I don't know about the privacy concerns on
something like that, but I do believe that, for example, in
your State, that is exactly what is happening.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Chairman Craig. Senator, thank you for very good questions.
Senator Burr?
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ciccolella, let me first say we are asking a lot of
process questions. I do not want you to lose perspective that
this is all about outcome. At the end of the day, it is about
how successful we are in this mission.
I have noticed that we have a director of VETS, one for
every State. Is that correct?
Mr. Ciccolella. That is correct.
Senator Burr. Can you tell me how many of those directors
are veterans?
Mr. Ciccolella. Virtually all of them are veterans.
Senator Burr. Virtually all of them?
Mr. Ciccolella. Virtually all of them. And virtually all of
the veteran employment staff that we fund at the State, 99
percent of those are also veterans.
Senator Burr. I appreciate that answer, and I appreciate
the fact that that is a focus because I think it is essential
to a successful program that you have individuals involved that
understand the other side that many in this country don't.
Let me get to some of Secretary Principi's questions.
Incentives, specifically. I noticed in the GAO report you
reported that a third of the States have no incentive program
for the reasons of State law, policies, or collective
bargaining.
I went through your chart as well of the number of States
that had a balance, I think that is 1 percent of their grant,
to be used for incentives. Twenty-seven States gave no
incentives. Clearly, there is an additional number of States
that have an incentive program, could have an incentive
program, gave no incentive. Can anybody give me an answer as to
why?
Mr. Ciccolella. I think 17 States didn't use the incentive
program at all, and it is because of the stipulations that you
just mentioned. Some of them are regulatory. Some of them are
by law. Some are decisions that the State made where an
individual who assists a veteran into employment, they didn't
want for that individual to get an award, but someone else in
the workforce system, you know, would not get one. So there was
an equity issue.
On the other hand, there are States like Illinois that have
used the incentive systems very well, and the idea behind the
incentive systems is sort of ``pay for performance.'' It is
designed to give cash.
Senator Burr. How about the 10 States that apparently have
incentives--they can use them, the State law doesn't prohibit
them, collective bargaining doesn't prohibit them--but they
gave no incentive. Did they not hit the goals that were
targeted?
Mr. Ciccolella. If the States had no prohibition and didn't
use the incentives, then that is a waste.
Senator Burr. Well, let me just flag those 10 for
Department of Labor to look at and work on.
Mr. Ciccolella. Yes. Sure. And if I could just say,
Senator, and I know your time is limited, we are looking at
this very carefully because we are looking at it in conjunction
with what the GAO found and in consultation with them because
we don't know whether we have the incentives thing right. And
we don't know whether that really works best at the State level
or whether it works best at the national level.
Senator Burr. Well, given that the State folks are the ones
on the firing line, I would be willing to bet that that is the
correct place to put the incentive. It probably is not on the
State directors that are Federal employees, and I think we have
got to find a way to make that connection.
Are there sanctions for people who underperform?
Mr. Ciccolella. States that underperform. In the grant
provisions, we require the States to provide their plans on how
they are going to serve veterans. If they don't come forward
with a total plan or if they consistently underperform, we do
have the authority, as does the Employment and Training
Administration, to withhold the grant. As a general rule, we
don't do that. We have never done that.
Senator Burr. Do we threaten? Have we threatened?
Mr. Ciccolella. What we do is not threaten, we work with
that State as closely as we can to find out what the reasons
are. We are solution focused. We do take their money. We will
not allocate money. In other words, we will recapture some of
the money.
Senator Burr. Only four States used all of their incentive
money. Let me ask you a simple way. Are sanctions and rewards
successful?
Mr. Ciccolella. The incentives, in my view, are successful.
The sanctions, I believe, you know, this is about getting
veterans jobs. If you take the money from the State and they
can't fund the DVOP and LVER program, their situation is going
to be a lot worse.
Senator Burr. I agree with you totally.
Mr. Ciccolella. We would much rather work with that State
and bring them into compliance.
Senator Burr. I will end my questions the same way that
Secretary Principi ended his testimony. If a State doesn't
perform, don't we have an obligation to find another way to do
it?
Mr. Ciccolella. I have no argument with that at all,
Senator.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
Chairman Craig. Senator Burr, thank you very much.
Senator Salazar?
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am continuing to be more and more troubled by this
statistic that shows that 15 percent of our veterans, at the
end of 2005, age 20 to 24 are unemployed. Those statistics are
near depression kinds of statistics that ought to be making us
all extremely concerned.
I want to just come back to the concept that Secretary
Principi spoke about, and that is the notion of standards and
accountability. We use them in other kinds of programs. I guess
my question that I would ask Secretary Principi and perhaps
Secretary Ciccolella to respond to is how would you define
those standards and goals to create the accountability that we
all want?
I think these results are unacceptable. We are going to
create standards and accountability to get better results so we
can measure them. How would you define what they would be?
Second of all, I am new to this U.S. Senate, relatively new
with, I guess, a couple of my colleagues across the table here.
But why is it that you threw out a notion kind of at the very
end, Secretary Principi, that perhaps the veterans training
employment program may be about to be moved out of the
Department of Labor and put over in the VA.
If you look at the health care program that we have in VA,
it seems that it is one that is touted as a model for health
care around the country. Why not take this program out of Labor
and put it out in VA when we have these kinds of very
unacceptable statistics?
Secretary Principi. Sure. I agree, Senator. What those
performance standards should be, certainly that recently
separated service members do not have a higher unemployment
rate than nonveterans in the same age group, and I think the
Department of Labor can come up with those performance
standards. They are certainly better suited to do that than I
am.
But I come back to the notion that--and maybe I am wrong.
Maybe the JVA did provide some accountability. But there just
doesn't seem to be any accountability. I mean, the fact that
the Secretary indicated that there has never been any
sanctions, that there is no competition, I just think that
provides a certain incentive to do a job well. And unless that
is there, I think we are going to be back 2 or 3 years from now
showing the same unemployment statistics.
This Committee has held a lot of hearings on this subject
since I was chairman of the transition commission and
throughout the time that I was Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
We are going back now 7 or 8 years. We come here in January,
February of 2006, and we find that some of the same problems
still persist. So I think more reform is necessary.
One option to look at is to transfer the function to the
VA, entrusted with the resources and the ability to hold
program managers accountable. But just transferring it, VETS,
from Department of Labor to the VA without the resources,
without the ability to hold program managers accountable, I
don't think it will work.
But VA only has one mission, and that is to serve veterans.
There are no nonveteran constituencies competing for the
resources of the VA. But I think that should be a last resort,
and I think that improvements are being made. Hopefully, with
some further reform, veterans will be well served.
Senator Salazar. Assistant Secretary Ciccolella, if you
would answer both questions as well on the performance
standards and accountability as well as the notion of
transferring the program from Labor to VA?
Mr. Ciccolella. Sure. On the standards, the standards
should be the same as they are for the negotiated performance
rates with the State that our State director and the State come
up with because that is a uniform standard. And the area of 20-
to 24-year-olds, we need to look at that very carefully. It
needs to be a special area of interest, and that needs to be
conveyed to all of our State directors, which it is, and to the
State workforce agencies because they have a great deal of sway
with regard to paying special attention to young veterans.
With regard to the move to the VA, we looked at this. It
was a proposal the first year I was in the organization. We
looked at it, and I worked with Secretary Principi's folks to
do the plan and whatnot for that.
Secretary Principi is right. If you look at transferring
something like this, you have to transfer it with the
resources. But the other thing that I think is really
important, you know, we have a $15 billion investment in the
workforce system in this country every year. So if we transfer
the VETS program to the VA, what I didn't see in that transfer
plan was that the veteran employment representatives and
veterans who were going to be helped would have the advantage
of all of the programs that are available through the workforce
system.
I think that is absolutely critical because I think if they
don't have that, then they would be at a great disadvantage.
There is no point in having a $15 billion investment in our
workforce system if we are not going to avail those resources
to veterans.
I guess I ought to look to see whether the OMB surveillance
people are here. There is one argument that I guess I could
make to support Secretary Principi's contention, and that is,
if I am not mistaken, I think the VA is exempted from this 1
percent rescission. I don't think Labor or the VETS program is.
So that would be one argument that I guess I could throw
out there. One percent of a $224 million budget is pretty huge
for us.
Senator Salazar. If I may, Senator Craig, just one? I think
it would be helpful for us as a committee to perhaps
independently from both of you or perhaps from GAO, Dr. Nilsen,
just to get a sense of what kinds of standards and
accountability could be put into place that would measure
results and that would have the kind of sanctions that would
lead us to better results than we have here.
I very much think that would be useful to us as a
committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Senator Salazar, we are not through with
this issue. Go ahead, Dr. Nilsen.
Dr. Nilsen. Yes. I would like to just make a comment about
your question about accountability, and it goes back to
something that Senator Akaka had asked earlier.
The performance measures that the Veterans' Employment and
Training Service uses does not really target populations that
are highest in need. They focus on a total entered employment
rate. Well, that is not targeting on the 20- to 24-year-olds or
recently separated veterans.
Without measures that target the populations you are
concerned with, that does not send a message down to the local
level that these are the people we really want you to focus on
and to provide services to. As we said, I think it was
Secretary Principi said before, you get what you measure. If
you are not measuring the outcomes for people 20 to 24 years
old, you are not going to get the focus on that population.
And so far, I know in past reports, when we looked at
earlier strategic plans for VETS, they had discussions about
who they cared about most, and they cared about all the various
populations of veterans, which ended up saying we care about
all veterans, which is fine. But then you don't have any
targeting within that.
If you care about everybody at the same time, you are
saying you care equally, and you are not necessarily focusing
your resources on those who are most in need. Their performance
measures also did not represent those most in need. It
represented just all.
So if you are not counting, if you don't have the data, you
are not going to have a focus on those that you really want to
focus on.
Chairman Craig. Senator, thank you.
Senator Thune? John?
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very
much, panel.
Secretary Principi, it is nice to see you again. I don't
know whether to call you ``Chairman'' or ``Secretary.'' I spent
much of 2005 shadowing you around, and I hope you don't have
bad dreams about me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. But it is good to see you again, and thank
you for all your service to our country.
I guess I am interested in knowing in this particular graph
if, in fact, is this broken down, do you have State by State on
this somewhere? This is the one that shows I guess the
disparity between veterans and nonveterans in that 20 to 24?
Mr. Ciccolella. It is not broken down. It is not broken
down by State. The figures for the veteran unemployment rate,
age 20 to 24, is a category that the Bureau of Labor Statistics
surveys every month. They survey the 60,000 folks. They ask
certain questions.
Senator Thune. So it is that universe, and it is not broken
down?
Mr. Ciccolella. It is that universe. Yes, it is a national
universe. Yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Is it broken down at all demographically? I
mean, if there is no geographic----
Mr. Ciccolella. Yes. They do collect some demographic
information. They know that it is largely a Caucasian
population, what the college education rate is, those things,
yes.
Senator Thune. Just that data would seem to be important to
me if we were talking about focusing on this particular
universe of people, which is very troubling. I mean, this is a
statistic that I think causes great concern. And I am glad, Mr.
Chairman, that you have decided to focus on it.
I have just got a couple of observations and maybe
questions or just that you could give a reaction to on that
because it seems to me, at least, that is this a function of
you have got young people coming back in that age category, and
maybe who bypass college or tech ed, and are now moving back,
transitioning into the workforce. Is it a function of training?
Do they have the skill sets that are necessary for the
workplace, and is that something that is skewing these
statistics in a way that creates this disparity?
Mr. Ciccolella. In general, when a service member exits the
service, whether it is like with me at 28 years or a service
member that has served 2 or 3 years, they are making quite a
transition in their first time coming into the workforce. So
there are issues with regard to that transition. There are
obviously stress and issues and things like that.
With regard to skills, today's military members--Guard,
Reserve, active component--this is not like the 1960s, where
people came in with very few skills. They fought in combat.
They came back. They didn't have much in the way of skills.
These kids are really skilled today, and they learn more skills
when they are in the military, even in the combat arms. That is
a very high technology business.
So they have very good skills that are translatable. More
importantly, they have what employers are looking for. They
have the ability to come to work on time and to take
instructions and to be dependable and to help businesses grow
their business. And that is what employers are looking for. At
least that is what they tell us they are looking for, and we
talk to them all the time.
So we have a transition issue that we try to bridge with
the transition employment workshop that we provide to all the
service members and that we are trying to provide to the
National Guard and Reserve. And I think the folks in South
Dakota actually go to another State. I think they have them go
to another State for that.
To me, that is absolutely a critical component of their
transition because it is, as Secretary Principi mentioned, it
is a big step. There is no question that when you exit the
service, in a sense, you are behind those who didn't serve for
a short period of time. Once our veterans get into the
workforce, they are generally very, very successful.
Senator Thune. Right. That is why it would seem to me that
they would have the character, qualities, the work ethic, all
the things that people in the workforce would just welcome.
That is why I was wondering if there was some in the skill set
area that was lacking, and I am sure there are transitional
issues as folks come back.
But I really would think, Mr. Chairman, that to the degree
that we can get as much detail and data on this problem and
define it as much as we can so that we can figure out a
solution for it. And I would just make one final comment and
question, and that is maybe directed at the GAO.
Was there anything in your study that suggested that we are
doing things that are unique to rural areas? Are there things
that we are doing well there? Are there unique challenges that
we face in rural areas? Some of these unemployment numbers
even, that is why I asked the question about if you had any
geographic breakdowns, if there are things that are unique to
the part of the country that I represent, States like South
Dakota?
Dr. Nilsen. There is nothing unique that we found in the
course of doing our work to rural areas. But in general, a lot
of my work focuses on labor issues in general, and rural areas
do present different sets of issues and problems, as you know.
Transportation is a biggie. Getting access to these services is
huge. You don't have a One-Stop down the street that you can go
to.
But techniques that people increasingly use are, you know,
Internet access, particularly through libraries and things like
that in local communities are increasingly helping people gain
access to the information in the One-Stops. But beyond that,
veterans face the same problems that other folks who are
unemployed and looking for a job in rural areas face and those
challenges that are different from if you are in a large
metropolitan area with numerous employers and lots of options.
Senator Thune. All right. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Craig. Richard, you said you had a small question?
Senator Burr. Just a quick question, a follow-up to John's
first question.
Charles, does Labor know how many unemployed vets are in
North Carolina? Or, for that fact, any State?
Mr. Ciccolella. In total, no. I don't believe we do.
Senator Burr. So, in total, we do, but per State we don't.
Is that an accurate statement? And I would just make the
comment that----
Mr. Ciccolella. Yes.
Senator Burr. --I think that is absolutely a vital piece of
information to know. Because we have a State-based program that
has no idea what the number is, which makes it almost
impossible for them to know if they are making progress other
than what we share with them.
Mr. Ciccolella. I really need to check that because the
State workforce agency may have that information. But I will
check that.
Senator Burr. I would also say for the purposes of
Secretary Principi, because he has a hotline to DOD that most
of us don't have, I think it is also a vital statistic that we
know, as individuals are retiring from the military, leaving
the armed forces, how many are employed on the way out the
door? Because there is a function of this, as we know, that
starts much earlier than the day that they are walking out.
Just like our higher education today takes great pride in
being able to say not just to its alumni, but to the Federal
Government what their graduation rate is, now the hottest thing
on the university campus is what the employment rate is of this
year's graduating class. I think that is an important thing for
DOD to look at.
Chairman Craig. Gentlemen, thank you all very much. You
have all made some valuable statements. There have been some
tough questions asked, and I must tell you some of the answers
are sketchy at best.
This Committee will be back to you and to you and to you
again until we determine if you have got it right or if we are
going to have to fix it so you can get it right. My next
question was going to be ``do we need reform?'' I think
Secretary Principi has asked that.
But these numbers are startling to all of us, at the least,
and we are very frustrated by it. We thank you for it, and Mr.
Secretary, we are going to have you back again. You can't
measure without statistics. It is critical that we have them,
that we are able to understand what the scope of the problem is
beyond these broad measurements.
This Committee and this Congress is intent upon this
problem. We will stay with you until we either figure out how
to get it right or change it in a way that it can be made
right.
Thank you all very much.
Now I will ask our second panelists to come forward,
please. If I could have the second panelists come forward now,
we will get started with you. And I am going to ask my
colleague, after introducing the panel, Senator Richard Burr to
complete the chairing of this hearing, and I thank you,
Richard, for your flexibility and time.
Have we lost the panelists? Is Wes here?
All right. We will get started. I think Mr. Poriotis will
be with us soon. And of course, Wes Poriotis is the chairman of
the Center for Military and Private Sector Initiatives. Joseph
Sharpe, Jr., deputy director for the American Legion National
Economic Commission. And Rick Weidman, director of government
relations for Vietnam Veterans of America.
Gentlemen, I apologize for having to step away. Our first
panel went a little longer than we had anticipated, but your
testimony for the record is critical. As I have said in my
opening comments and in my response to the first panel as they
exited, this is a rapidly growing concern amongst those of us
here.
As we know over the years, we have spent a lot of time with
it, but it doesn't quite seem like we are getting it right. A
lot of reform and yet less response. That is simply
unacceptable.
It is the human factor. I could look at resources and a
failure for those resources to yield what we would hope they
would. But I think Senator Burr put it well. We are interested
in outcomes. We are interested in these numbers changing here
or knowing why they can't change.
So I will turn it over. Wes, I have already introduced you,
and we thank you for being with us, and I will turn the hearing
over to Senator Burr. Richard, thank you.
Senator Burr [presiding]. At this time, Wes, if you are
ready, we will recognize you for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WESLEY PORIOTIS, CHAIRMAN, THE CENTER FOR MILITARY
AND PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES
Mr. Poriotis. Thank you. On a note of levity, Mr. Chairman,
when you introduced me as ``Wes,'' and you paused, I chuckled
because being this is the fourth time I have testified, I was
introduced as ``Mr. Psoriasis''----
[Laughter.]
Chairman Craig. I didn't do that badly.
Mr. Poriotis.--in front of the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
Chairman Craig. I see.
Mr. Poriotis. But is an honor to be here----
Chairman Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Poriotis.--to share ways to improve and enhance
employment for veterans. In 1994, at the request of the Joint
Chiefs, I undertook a scientific study of the transition and
post transition experiences of military veterans seeking to
enter the private sector job market.
My research found that there was a deselective bias, very
analogous to that which it historically affected, women and
people of color, entering into the job market. That deselective
bias was about military service, not about veterans, because
military service had lost its value, and its brand had been
lowered in the minds of many American employers, especially
those in the nondefense sector.
I have examined this problem over the past decade, and I
find that, despite all of the work that has been done by the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, they do come up
short. They are not equipped. They don't have the corporate
relationships. They don't have the network. They are not tasked
to place.
They don't have the hardened, tough, job acquisition
experience that would transcend the hurdles and the challenges
that all folks face when they try to access the quality jobs in
the private sector. ``The quality jobs'' being the hidden job
market jobs. Those that are not publicized. Those that are not
advertised. Those that don't come across the screen on the Web
sites, the career.coms, the other monster boards.
Let me explain the problem this way. In the
telecommunications industry, they divide the work of building
network infrastructure into four general categories--the
backbone, the middle mile, the last mile, and the last 100
feet. You can lay thousands of miles of fiber optic cable, but
without that final connection to the home or the business, the
last 100 feet, you don't have a customer.
That is what has been missing in Federal veterans
employment programs, the placement services that connect
veterans that last 100 feet. Forgive my being out of breath. I
think the DayQuil is getting to me from the cold. But I
sometimes feel like Mark Twain, when looking at the VETS
program these last 4 or 5 years and trying to bring them to
performance standards to enhance their capability. His quip
was, ``Everybody talks about the weather, and very few people
do anything about it.'' And I think we do have to do something
about it, including some ideas I have.
There already exists a backbone analogous to the
telecommunications industry in the VETS program. One-Stop
centers and thousands of dedicated and often caring LVERs and
DVOPs working that middle and last mile to help prepare
veterans for employment. But these Federal employees, again,
have neither the training, the time, the resources to make that
final connection between the veteran job-seeker and the private
sector employer.
To make that final connection, the last 100 feet--and I
have included that as attached to my testimony and would hope
that it would be inserted in the record--the Center for
Military and Private Sector Initiatives, which we established
to bridge the gap between corporate America and the veteran
community, we propose the creation of a Veterans Job
Development Corps, which would be a public-private partnership
dedicated to placing veterans in quality jobs.
This outsourcing of the placement function would transform
VETS. It would be the ``hamburger helper'' to the hamburger to
sell the hamburger. Right now, the hamburger is not being sold.
I call it a transformational outsourcing.
In some cases, outsourcing has a negative connotation. But
in this case, why try to change city hall? Why try to change an
institution that is so embedded politically it is not going to
change, and it is doing a good job in the context of what its
training is? I say we transform it. We take the placement side.
We outsource it.
The corps would be composed of what we call--and I have to
tell you that a group of volunteers spent hundreds and hundreds
of hours over the summer and the early fall looking at this.
The corps would be composed of what we call career navigators,
employment market openers, and job developers. All trained and
experienced in the private sector. All with demonstrated track
records of placing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
people.
There are people who make a market and make a living doing
this. We are not reaching out to them to imbue their talents
into this whole placement debacle. The Veterans Job Development
Corps would tap into a network of hundreds of thousands of job
search, placement, and human resources professionals through
organizations like the Society for Human Resources Management,
which I find has 200,000 human resources, talent acquisition,
and staffing persons who have never been influenced to
influence the influencers, their own corporate executives and
hiring managers, to embrace this asset called military service,
this wonderful asset.
The Veterans Job Development Corps would locate, nurture,
mine, and exploit the hidden job market. We haven't today
talked about the hidden job market where the quality jobs are.
It would market veterans to employers. It would connect
veterans and champion them directly to persons with hiring
authority, and it would, most importantly, secure interviews
for them. Without an interview, you don't get a job offer.
Most importantly, work that final few parts of the process
to close and negotiate compensation and implicitly sustain
their career mobility through retention programs.
The corps would have--and I think this is very important--
the corps would have a mobile ``delta force.'' We thought about
this at length. This delta force would be teams of individuals
for the marketing, for the placement, to the championing, to
the counseling, who would actually go into the homes,
especially for the disabled and wounded service persons.
We held a conference and brought 138 of the most wounded
and severely disabled veterans free of charge in a ``road to
recovery'' program, and most of them told us if there was such
a thing as a delta force that could come into the home, give
them counsel and help, and work the local employers and, most
especially, help the spouse.
In many cases, the spouse is much more appropriate in a
disabled veteran's home for immediate employment, and this
delta force could do that. But I do think we need a delta force
to go into these troubled employment areas and work that as one
would a firefight in troubled times.
The Veterans Job Development Corps would have strict
metrics for determining success, and those metrics would be how
many veterans get jobs? Funding for the corps could be tied
directly to results in the form of successful job placements,
and part of the cost could be recovered from the companies who
hire veterans.
We have analyzed this, and we think that for less than 5
percent of the budgets and the funding that are being spent for
the LVER and DVOP and workforce programs, you could actualize a
corps, including the delta force, throughout the Nation to
enhance opportunities and bring veterans that last 100 feet.
Finally, let me again urge this Committee to strongly
consider authorizing a new marketing campaign to change the
image and perception of military veterans in the private
sector, utilizing classic consumer packaged goods techniques to
rebrand military service as having value to the private sector.
What has not been talked about amongst those within the
Beltway who talk to one another is the need to create the pull.
Most of the Federal programs are pushing veterans into the
workforce as opposed to creating demand and a pull through
using the classic marketing and branding techniques.
Two weeks ago, we convened Coca-Cola, IBM, Motorola,
MasterCard, Colgate Palmolive and a series of senior marketing
executives, and we gave them the product called ``veteran'' and
military service. We said if you were relaunching this product
to your own companies and to the consuming public, how would
you do it?
I can share those results with you at a later date. There
is a branding paper I have included with my testimony. But Mr.
Chairman, we need to increase the demand for veterans among
private sector employers, focusing on that final connection,
the last 100 feet.
I would say to you that we need to work together to
traverse that last 100 feet, and I would like to close and
conclude my testimony by quoting that famous American
philosopher Yogi Berra, who said, ``If you don't know where you
are going, chances are you will end up somewhere else.''
That is where we have ended up today, and I think we should
change it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poriotis follows with
attachments:]
Prepared Statement of Wesley Poriotis, Chairman, The Center for
Military and Private Sector Initiatives
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, I want to
thank you for the honor of appearing before you today to discuss how we
might work together to improve the transition of servicemen and women
from the military into private sector jobs. Having spent almost my
entire career helping connect people with jobs, I am grateful for the
opportunity to share some perspectives of the private sector as you
consider what to do with Federal veterans' employment programs.
Over the past 4 years, I have been called upon to testify three
times on this very subject by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,
offering them advice on how to fix, strengthen, or perhaps even replace
the Veterans Employment and Training Service. As I am sure you are
aware, despite continuing improvements, the VETS program does not have
a strong record of successfully placing veterans into jobs. Looking at
DOL's annual performance report, they set the bar of success at just 60
percent--so if 60 percent of the veterans who contact them find
employment within 6 months, the VETS performance goal has been met. But
what about the other 40 percent--hundreds of thousands veterans--most
of whom have come into the One-Stop Career Centers because they lost
their jobs or couldn't find one in the first place?
Mr. Chairman, I have been working on how to connect corporate
America with this untapped and underutilized quality resource called
military service since the early 1990s while performing executive and
management searches for Fortune 500 companies. As we were able to
achieve pre-eminent status in corporate America in terms of diversity,
I became acutely aware that the difficulties military veterans
encountered were the same that had been earlier experienced by women
and people of color.
In 1994, at the request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I undertook a
scientific study of the transition and post-transition experiences of
military veterans seeking to enter the private sector job market. My
research found that there was indeed a ``deselective'' bias against
people with military experience that often kept them from even being
considered for private sector jobs even when they were well qualified
for that position.
In my report I recommended that military transition assistance and
veterans employment programs be restructured to meet the challenges of
placement in the modern private sector market. Four years later, the
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition
Assistance, headed by the Honorable Anthony Principi who testified
earlier, came to a very similar conclusion. The Commission recommended
replacing the existing LVER and DVOP programs with new and different
programs: one of which would be focused in part on job development and
the other on marketing veterans to local employers. These
recommendations were not implemented. So despite some modest
refinements made by the Jobs for Veterans Act in 2003, the VETS program
today is substantially the same program, with the same methodology and
personnel that existed a decade ago.
Let me explain the problem this way: in the telecommunications
industry, they divide the work of building our network infrastructure
into four general categories: the backbone, the middle mile, the last
mile and the last 100 feet. You can lay thousands of miles of fiber
optic cable, but without that final connection to the home or
business--the last 100 feet--you don't have a customer. And that's what
has been missing in Federal programs to help veterans find quality
employment--the last 100 feet.
There already exists a backbone of One-Stop Centers and thousands
of often dedicated and caring LVERs and DVOPs working that middle and
last mile, counseling and helping prepare veterans for employment. But
these Federal employees have neither the training, resources, nor time
to make that final connection between the veteran job-seeker and the
private sector person with hiring authority. They simply don't have the
necessary private sector experience or contacts.
This is exactly what our Vice President for Employment Programs
found as he visited with numerous LVERs and DVOPs over the past year.
They told him that their biggest problem is a lack of quality job
opportunities, and that they did not have enough time to market
veterans directly to local employers. So despite their hard work, the
best they can do is to get veterans prepared for job searches, and then
direct them to data bases or websites where employers are being
encouraged to post job openings.
However, in the private sector, most good jobs are either not
publicly advertised, or by the time they are advertised, they have
already been filled or wired for a specific candidate. Mr. Chairman, if
you want to find jobs in the private sector, you need to engage persons
with private sector experience to find those jobs, and then connect
veterans to those jobs. To be truly successful, you need to bring in
private sector expertise to connect that last 100 feet between veterans
and jobs.
That's why The Center proposed the Veterans Job Development Corps,
a public-private partnership to place veterans in quality jobs. This
Corps would be composed of what we call career navigators, employment
market openers and job developers, all trained and experienced in the
private sector. The Veterans Job Development Corps also taps into the
network of hundreds of thousands of job search, placement, and human
resource professionals through organizations like the Society for Human
Resource Managers, or SHRM.
The Veterans Job Development Corps can locate the hidden jobs,
market veterans to employers, connect them directly to persons with
hiring authority, get them interviews and job offers, and support them
as they begin their new jobs. The Corps would also have mobile ``Delta
Force'' teams that would be sent to help veterans with significant
barriers to employment by going directly into their homes and their
local job markets. They would be responsible for ensuring that the
veteran makes it that last 100 feet.
The Veterans Job Development Corps would have strict metrics for
determining success: how many veterans get jobs. Funding for the
Veterans Job Development Corps could be tied directly to results in the
form of successful job placements. Part of the cost could even be
recovered from the companies who hire veterans through placement fees.
In addition, getting veterans off unemployment rolls and into quality
jobs will increase revenue increases from income taxes paid by newly
and more fully employed veterans.
Mr. Chairman, for about 5 percent of amount of funding currently
spent on the LVER and DVOP programs, you could implement this plan and
increase the number of positive outcomes for veteran job-seekers very
significantly. Or you could reallocate 5 percent of existing program
funding to enable the Job Development Corps, giving you much greater
bang for your buck.
Let me take this opportunity to also strongly recommend that the
Committee consider authorizing a new marketing campaign to change the
image and perception of military veterans in the private sector using
classic ``re-branding'' techniques. In addition to improving how we
connect veterans to employers, we need to increase the demand for
veterans by private sector employers. This was one of the dozen
recommendations I made to the Joint Chiefs and the President back in
1995, and it was also echoed by Secretary Principi and the Transition
Commission in 1999 when they called for a national campaign to raise
awareness of the many advantages of hiring veterans.
Although this idea was incorporated into the Jobs For Veterans Act
in the form of the President's National Hire Veterans Committee, in the
course of passing and enacting legislation, promulgating regulations,
and implementing programs, the original goals and purposes were lost in
translation. This 'Hire Veterans' Committee directed their time and
resources in the wrong direction. Rather than marketing veterans to
employers to increase the demand or what I call the ``pull'' from the
private sector, they focused upon trying to ``push'' the private sector
into using the public sector workforce system. This resulted in a
flawed implementation of a sound idea.
In fact, The Center is currently engaged in a feasibility study on
marketing veterans to the private sector that was authorized by the
Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-454) and is
being directed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Just a couple of weeks ago, we convened
a summit of corporate branding and marketing experts in New York City
to apply proven consumer marketing techniques to re-brand veterans as a
valuable business asset. Whether such a campaign should or would be
funded by DOL, VA or DOD remains to be seen, but there is no question
about the need to change corporate perceptions about the value of
military veterans to private sector employers.
Mr. Chairman, we can think of veteran job-seekers as a product that
we are trying to sell to private sector employers, who are the
customers. Like any consumer product, we need to create strong demand
and build a distribution system to get the product to the customers
when and where they are ready to make a purchase. To create demand, we
need to re-brand military veterans as a competitive business asset and
market them directly to the persons involved in the hiring process. To
strengthen our distribution system, we need to develop a new program of
completing that last 100 feet, by locating the hidden jobs and
connecting veterans directly to the persons with hiring authority. The
end result will not only be higher employment rates for veterans, but
as important, a big improvement in the quality of career opportunities
for veterans.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I have attached a copy
of the Veterans Job Development Corps proposal and a ``white paper'' on
Branding the Veteran, and I would ask that they both be made a part of
the record. I thank you for your attention and would be happy to answer
any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.087
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to Wesley Poriotis
Question 1a. It appears to me that some of the functions that would
be performed by the Veterans Job Development Corps would overlap with
functions that already should be performed by Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVERs), such as job search and interview training. So,
could it be redundant to fund those programs as well as the Corps you
proposed?
Answer. No response.
Question 1b. If so, would the Veterans Job Development Corps be
prepared to compete for a portion of the funding now allocated to the
DVOP and LVER programs?
Answer. No response.
Question 2. In your testimony, you expressed concern about the
roughly 40 percent of veteran participants who do NOT enter employment
after receiving services from the One Stop Career Centers. I share your
concern. Do you think: more should be done to track these veterans--to
find out who they are and why the One-Stop services did not help them
to find employment? Could that information be useful in figuring out
what more could be done to help these veterans find jobs?
Answer. No response.
Question 3. One on-going concern about the structure of the DVOP
and LVER programs is that it does not encourage service to those most
in need--those veterans who may require the most time-consuming
assistance. How would you ensure that the Veterans Job Development
Corps would provide all necessary services to those veterans? Would
performance measures be weighted in some fashion?
Answer. No response.
__________
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama to Wesley Poriotis
I want to thank the panel. Mr. Poriotis, your Veterans Job
Development Corps is a promising idea. Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Weidman
provided detailed and valuable critiques of the VETS program and the
GAO report.
Question 1. Monitoring and accountability seem to be the Achilles
heel of the VETS program. What steps would you recommend to improve the
Labor Department's performance in this area?
Answer. No response.
Question 2. One of major barriers to employment is homelessness. Do
you think the Department of Labor is doing enough to reach out and
provide services to our homeless veterans? What steps could VETS take
to improve its outreach?
Answer. No response.
Senator Burr. Thank you. Thank you for that testimony. I
assure you I will cover some questions related to your
testimony and would make all aware that all of the information
that you have to supply us will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Sharpe?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Sharpe. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we
appreciate this opportunity to share the views of the American
Legion on the performance of Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment Training Service, its resource needs, and the State
grant program, which funds Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
specialists and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives.
Every year, 250,000 service members are discharged from the
armed services. These former service personnel are actively
seeking their employment or the continuation of formal or
vocational education. The VETS program offers transitioning
veterans the assistance they need to obtain employment.
President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget request for VETS
was $224 million. This marks a modest $3 million increase from
the final funding allocated in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. The American Legion remains steadfast
supportive of the VETS within Department of Labor, as
administered by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans'
Employment and Training and the critical role each program
continues to have in the lives of America's veterans and their
families.
The American Legion recommended $339 million for the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service in fiscal year 2006
and is recommending $345.8 million for fiscal year 2007. This
would provide funding for the State grants for the LVERs and
DVOPs, the National Veterans Training Institute, the Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program, and the Veterans Workforce
Investment Program.
Additionally, the American Legion supports stronger
oversight over funding for DVOP and LVER to ensure that the
State grants are, indeed, earmarked for veteran-specific
employment services. It is important that States be held
accountable for the funds they received under the DVOP and LVER
grant program.
The American Legion is also concerned that the rate of job
placement of veterans, training programs, and other vital
services has decreased. Under the previous performance data
reporting system, veterans seeking employment and those
entering employment can only be counted after a mediated
service was provided.
Under the current system, individuals only have to register
and enter the employment system to be counted as assisted
veterans, thereby giving the false impression that the One-Stop
career centers are actually doing a better job of finding
employment and training opportunities for veterans.
The American Legion is concerned with not only how
employment services are delivered by the One-Stop, but also
with veterans seeking priority of service, as outlined by the
2002 Jobs for Veterans Act. The American Legion is pleased to
hear from the Department of Labor officials that veterans are
actually receiving priority of service. However, VETS has not
published any data for determining how effective its priority
of veterans services are, nor have they reported to Congress on
progress made in implementation of some key aspects of the 2002
Jobs for Veterans Act.
The American Legion strongly recommends a revision of
existing VETS reporting requirements for measuring performance
standards and for determining compliance with requirements for
providing employment services to veterans. The rolling quarter
reporting system should be administered in a timely manner to
better project the employment services being sought by veterans
and to more accurately reflect the efforts of the DVOPs and
LVERs.
The LVERs and DVOPs are the heart and soul of VETS.
However, underfunding and understaffing has limited the success
of these programs. The American Legion strongly believes the
funding levels for DVOPs and LVERs should match Federal
staffing level formulas established before enactment of the
Jobs for Veterans Act to ensure services are available to
achieve the goals and aspirations of VETS. A veteran in
California should expect the same quality services available to
a veteran in Maine.
With the dramatic increase in the number of veterans from
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being discharged and the
increasing importance of One-Stop centers assisting all
transitioning veterans, the American Legion strongly recommends
that VETS continue frequent monitoring, visits to the centers,
and provide strict oversight of these programs.
The Department of Labor must ensure that veterans receive
priority in all department-level programs and services created
especially for their unique needs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the views of the American Legion, and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director, National
Economic Commission, The American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
The American Legion appreciates this opportunity to share its views
on the performance of Department of Labor's (DOL) Veterans' Employment
and Training Service (VETS) and its resource needs, and to review the
state grant program which funds Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
Specialists (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives
(LVER).
The mission of VETS is to promote the physical, emotional and
economic security of America's veterans. Its vision is to create a
seamless transition back to civilian life for veterans. The American
Legion views VETS as one of the Federal Government's best-kept secrets.
It is composed of many dedicated professional veterans who struggle to
maintain a quality, veteran-oriented program. However, VETS is
presently lacking in:
<bullet> Staffing;
<bullet> Funding;
<bullet> Proper oversight by VETS;
<bullet> Reliable performance data; and
<bullet> A comprehensive mandatory transitional assistance program
for returning reservists.
With regards to staffing, currently, VETS is one of the smallest
divisions of the Department of Labor. This severely limits the number
of staff available to assist veterans with employment issues. In
addition, the current system of management within VETS includes
Regional Offices, which continue to increase their number of staff that
do not provide direct services to veterans, conduct investigations or
provide any identifiable services or products that directly benefit
veterans. Thus the continued growth of staff in the Regional Offices
has had a negative and adverse impact on the delivery of services to
veterans seeking and needing employment assistances. The President's
Management Agenda calls for elimination of the middle level management
of the Federal Government. The American Legion seeks and supports
legislation that will eliminate the Regional Offices and use that
funding to increase the numbers of DVOPs and LVERs.
President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget request for VETS was $224
million. This marks a modest $3 million increase from the final funding
allocated in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill,
especially since every year 250,000 service members are discharged from
the Armed Services. These former service personnel are actively seeking
either employment or the continuation of formal or vocational
education. This is available through VETS, which offers:
<bullet> Creative outreach designed to improve employment and
training opportunities for veterans;
<bullet> Information in identifying military occupations requiring
licenses, certificates or other credentials at the local, state, or
national levels; and seeks to
<bullet> Eliminate barriers faced by former service personnel
transitioning from military service to the civilian labor market.
The American Legion remains steadfastly supportive of VETS within
DOL as administered by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans'
Employment and Training (ASVET). The American Legion recognizes the
positive impact each program continues to have in the lives of
America's veterans and their families. The American Legion recommended
$339 million for VETS in Fiscal Year 2006 and is recommending $345.8
million for fiscal year 2007. This would provide funding for State
Grants for LVERs and DVOPs, the National Veterans Training Institute
(NVTI), the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), and the
Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP).
With the enactment of Public Law 107-288, the Jobs for Veterans
Act, The American Legion remains skeptical as to whether VETS can truly
improve employment and training services to meet the needs of today's
local veterans' community. Especially since VETS has not reported its
progress to Congress as mandated by the implementation of Public Law
107-288. The American Legion has some serious concerns with the
implementation of the new approach to local staffing levels and job
performance standards.
The American Legion is concerned that the rate of job placement of
veterans, training programs and other vital services has decreased.
Under the previous performance data reporting system, veterans seeking
employment and those entering employment could only be counted after a
mediated service was provided. Under the current system, individuals
only have to register and enter the employment system to be counted as
an ``assisted veteran,'' thereby giving the false impression that the
One Stop Career Centers are doing a better job of finding employment
and training opportunities for veterans.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report of October 30, 2001,
noted, ``VETS needs the legislative authority to grant each state more
flexibility to design how staff will fit into the one-stop center
system.'' However, The American Legion has found some DVOPs and LVERs
are unofficially reporting that they spend 90 percent of their time
assisting non-veterans, while only spending 10 percent of their time
assisting veterans seeking employment. In some states, several part-
time LVERs and/or DVOPs are assigned to the same office in a metro
area. In some cases, converting current full time LVERs and DVOPs to
part-time employees has drastically limited the effectiveness of the
program. In other cases, specialists or representatives are so over-
tasked with clerical duties and office administration that they have
little time to provide much-needed outreach to job-seeking veterans.
Stronger oversight needs to be provided to ensure that DVOPs and LVERs
are given the resources needed to provide the services for which they
are responsible.
The American Legion is concerned not only about how employment
services are delivered by the One Stops, but also with the priority of
service as outlined by the 2002 Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA). The
American Legion is pleased to hear from DOL officials that veterans are
receiving priority of service. However, according to the recent GAO
report of December 2005, ``Labor has only partially implemented the JVA
requirement to give priority service to veterans in its many employment
training programs.''
VETS has not published any data for determining the effectiveness
of its veterans priority services. VETS is only now, in 2006, reporting
to Congress on their progress in the implementation of JVA's key
aspects. The current reporting timeframe reflects a 6-month delay. The
American Legion strongly recommends a revision of existing VETS
reporting requirements for measuring performance standards and for
determining compliance with requirements for providing employment
services to veterans. The rolling quarter reporting system should be
administered in a timely manner to better project the employment
services being sought by veterans and to more accurately reflect the
efforts of DVOPs and LVERs. According to VETS representatives surveyed
by The American Legion, it currently takes 18 months to receive data on
how well a program is functioning. Most report to The American Legion
that they cannot make changes or improvements after 18 months; in many
cases, the contractor or person responsible is no longer available.
THE FRONT LINE WARRIORS
The LVERs and DVOPs are the heart and soul of VETS. The unique
roles of these two programs are outlined in Title 38, Chapter 41,
United States Code. However, annual underfunding and understaffing have
limited the success of these programs.
The role of VETS is to augment local employment service offices and
handle the hard-to-place veterans, not just any veteran that walks in
the door, whether the veteran is job ready or not. Clearly, an LVER is
required to effectively perform many different roles. The American
Legion believes that all LVERs should be expected, at a minimum to:
<bullet> Ensure veterans are receiving quality services from local
employment services employees;
<bullet> Maintain regular contact with community leaders,
employers, labor unions, training programs, and veterans' service
organizations;
<bullet> Provide directly or facilitate labor exchange services to
eligible veterans;
<bullet> Job development with employers and labor unions--to
include on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs;
<bullet> Promote and monitor the participation of veterans in
federally funded employment and training programs;
<bullet> Monitor the listing of jobs and subsequent referrals to
Federal contractors;
<bullet> Work closely with VA's Vocational Rehabilitation Program;
<bullet> Refer veterans to training, supportive services, and
educational opportunities;
<bullet> Assist in securing and maintaining current information on
employment and training opportunities;
<bullet> Assist in identifying and acquiring prosthetic and sensory
aids and devices needed to enhance employability of disabled veterans;
and
<bullet> Facilitate guidance and counseling service to certain
veterans.
The LVER has no counterpart in a local employment service office.
The only supervisory control the LVER has is over any assigned DVOP. As
taxed as the LVER may be, the DVOPs job is just as demanding. The
American Legion believes all DVOPs should, at a minimum:
<bullet> Develop job leads and job training opportunities through
contacts with employers;
<bullet> Promote and develop apprenticeship and on-the-job training
opportunities with employers;
<bullet> Carry out outreach activities to locate veterans in need
of job assistance;
<bullet> Provide assistance to employers in securing job training
opportunities for eligible veterans;
<bullet> Assist local employment services office employees with
their responsibilities for serving veterans;
<bullet> Promote and assist in the development of entry-level and
career job opportunities;
<bullet> Develop outreach programs with VA Vocational
Rehabilitation (VOC Rehab) Program participants; and
<bullet> Provide case management.
Like the LVER, DVOPs have no counterpart in the local employment
service office.
The American Legion believes these two Federal programs were
designed to support local employment service office personnel, not
supplant nor integrate. VETS must retain complete autonomy in order to
be successful. Through the creation of these positions, Congress sought
to assure:
<bullet> All veterans received priority of service;
<bullet> Certain veterans received extensive case management;
<bullet> Employers hire veterans;
<bullet> Outreach activities recruited and assisted chronically
unemployed or underemployed veterans;
<bullet> Close contact was established and sustained with the
veterans' community;
<bullet> Effective marketing of Federal and state vocational
training opportunities;
<bullet> Monitoring of veterans' hiring practices by Federal
contractors; and
<bullet> The presence of veterans' employment advocates throughout
the local community. The American Legion strongly believes the funding
levels for DVOPs and LVERs should match Federal staffing level formula
established before enactment of JVA to assure services are available to
achieve the goals and aspirations of VETS. A veteran in California
should expect the same quality services available as a veteran in
Maine.
VETS was created to work with the local employment service office,
not to be incorporated into those offices. Prior to the creation of
VETS, the local employment service offices were failing to meet the
employment and training needs of veterans, especially disabled and
minority veterans. Many veterans were faced with significant barriers
to employment and needed more focused case management and personal
assistance because there was no appropriated funding for veterans. In
the beginning, VETS had the necessary funding and staff to deal
effectively with the employment problems throughout the veteran
population.
With the dramatic increase in the number of veterans from the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan being discharged and the increasing importance
of the One Stop Centers in assisting all transitioning veterans, the
American Legion strongly recommends that VETS continue frequent
monitoring visits to the centers and provide strict oversight of these
programs. DOL must ensure that veterans receive priority in all DQL
programs and services created specifically for their unique needs.
Title 38 USC, 4103A required that all DVOP specialists shall be
qualified veterans and that preference be given to qualified disabled
veterans in selecting and filling DVOP specialist positions. This
provision was changed by P.L. 107-288, which allows the appointment of
non-veterans to these positions for up to 6 months without any
justification. For over 20 years, these positions have been filled with
veterans and this has proved to be a winning combination. The American
Legion opposed non-veteran appointments and urges Congress to rescind
this change. The American Legion believes that military experience is
essential to understanding the unique needs of the veteran and that all
LVERs, as well as all DVOPs, should be veterans. In addition, The
American Legion is in strong opposition to part time DVOP and LVERs
because that may lead to limited services to veterans. Properly
monitoring and ensuring that the half time DVOP or LVER serves veterans
adequately is overly dependent on management within the career centers,
and nearly impossible. In our opinion, the use of part time positions
has led to examples of less than adequate services creating managerial
challenges and should only be allowed with the concurrence of the DVET
in the state.
The American Legion is also concerned with the reported numbers of
National Guard and Reserve troops that have returned from the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan only to encounter difficulties with finding
suitable employment. The Department of Labor transitional assistance
program (TAP) was designed to help prepare separating service members
and their families in making a successful transition back into the
civilian workforce. DOL estimates that 70 percent of all separating
active duty service members attend the employment TAP seminars and only
30 percent of all separating National Guard and Reservists attend a
portion of TAP. The American Legion believes this low attendance number
is a disservice to all transitioning service members. Many service
members and most National Guard and Reservists are unaware of the
assistance and resources offered by TAP. Without this program service
members who have served their country bravely return to the civilian
workforce less equipped than their counterparts who took advantage of
the information provided by TAP. The American Legion reaffirms its
strong support of TAP/DTAP program and also encourages the Departments
of Labor and Defense to work together in mandating that all separating,
active-duty service members, which includes the Reserves and the
National Guard, be given an opportunity to participate in TAP/DTAP.
The American Legion recommends adequate funding for the National
Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) budget. The NVTI provides
standardized training for all veterans employment advocates in an array
of employment and training functions. This excellent program helps to
prepare employment service personnel to professionally address the
vocational needs of veterans, especially those with barriers to
employment.
Over the past 6 years, VETS has endeavored to reinvent itself
within the confines of continued funding constraints, while faced with
major changes made under the Workforce Investment Act. VETS makes up
about 15 percent of the system operated in the states by the Employment
and Training Administration.
Approximately 56.2 percent of all unemployed veterans are over the
age of 45; therefore, many of these veterans are victims of corporate
restructuring, technology changes, or age discrimination. These
veterans need training to remain in their previous professions or to
begin new careers. Section 168 of the Workforce Investment Act
(formerly JTPA N-C) is that portion of the statute, which provides for
this type of training for veterans.
For the past 3 years, the $7.5 million annual funding for the
Veteran Workforce Improvement Program has allowed the program to
continue to operate in only 11 states. This is absolutely unacceptable.
There are thousands of veterans available for work in this new economy,
but they may lack marketable technological skills. The problem is
clearly a lack of funding. The only participants in this specific
program are military veterans. The baseline funding for it needs to be
at least increased to allow VETS to begin training in all fifty states.
Therefore, The American Legion would recommend $17.34 million for
Veteran Workforce Improvement Program in fiscal year 2007.
Although P.L. 107-288 requires that veterans receive priority in
all DOL programs, the American Legion urges the reinstatement of the
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA).
SMOCTA was developed as a transitional tool designed to provide job
training and employment to eligible veterans discharged after August 1,
1990 and provides an incentive for employers to hire veterans. Veterans
eligible for assistance under SMOCTA were those with a primary or
secondary military occupational specialty that DOD has determined is
not readily transferable to the civilian workforce; or those veterans
with a service connected disability rating of 30 percent or greater.
Eligible veterans received valuable job training and employment
services through civilian employers that built upon the knowledge and
job skills the veterans acquired while serving in the military. This
program not only improved employment opportunities for transitioning
service members, but also enabled the Federal dollars invested in
education and training for active duty service members to be reinvested
in the national job market by facilitating the transfer of skills from
military service to the civilian workforce.
The American Legion continues to encourage Congress to reauthorize
and adequately fund SMOCTA. Many LVERs and DVOP publicly praised the
effectiveness of SMOCTA in successfully returning veterans into the
civilian workforce. The American Legion recommends $45.9 million for
SMOCTA funding in fiscal year 2007. Should SMOCTA not be reauthorized,
these training dollars should be added to Veteran Workforce Improvement
Program (VWIP) job training opportunities.
SUMMARY
Messrs. Chairmen and members of the Committee, in this statement, I
have laid out the priorities for The American Legion regarding the many
programs and services made available to the veterans of this nation and
to their dependents and survivors.
The American Legion has outlined many central issues in this
testimony today regarding VETS. If there is an attempt to take the
DVOP/LVER grants and fully integrate them into WIA/ETA, there will no
longer be any veteran identity to these services. To allow the
individual state Governor to decide where the national program for
Veterans Employment and Training will reside within the respective
state means it is no longer a national program, but rather a state
program. The American Legion official position is that this should be a
national program with Federal oversight and accountability. And
finally, The American Legion strongly opposes any attempt to move VETS
to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The Department of Labor (DOL) is the nation's leading agency in the
area of job placement, vocational training, job development, and
vocational counseling. Due to the significant barriers to employment
experienced by many veterans, VETS was established to provide eligible
veterans with the services already being provided to job ready
Americans. Working with the local employment services offices, VETS
gave eligible veteran the personalized assistance needed to assist in
the transition into the civilian workforce. VA has very limited
experience in the critical areas of job placement, vocational training,
job development, and vocational counseling through its Vocational
Rehabilitation Program.
We realize in a time of war there are many other important issues
before the Congress of the United States. However, The American Legion
believes that Congress must focus on finding effective solutions to
veterans' concerns. The veterans of this nation have always answered
when their country called. Medals, awards, and citations recognize the
remarkable achievements of citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines, but the true gratitude paid to American's veterans comes in
the form of meeting their post-military needs, especially those with
any service-connected disabilities. The American Legion believes it is
time to make a meaningful commitment to the programs and services that
are an earned recognition for our veterans from a truly grateful
nation.
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to appear before you
today.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to
Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr.
Question 1. You stressed in your testimony the need to provide
additional resources for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP)
and Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program. However,
you also acknowledged that you are ``skeptical as to whether [the
Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)]
can truly improve employment and training services to meet the needs of
today's local veterans' community.'' Should we infuse more funds into a
system that may not be able to succeed? Or should we first determine
how to structure the system so that it will be able to succeed?
Answer. The VETS program is composed of many dedicated
professionals.
It is crucial to re-structure the system so it can be successful
and maximizes the benefits of every dollar spent. The objective of any
veteran program must be to ensure that the veteran is clearly served,
with built in performance data that can measure results. The workforce
structure needs to be understood by all interested parties whereby the
DVOP and LVER programs are merely a part of the structure. Another
important point to take into consideration is that DVOPs and LVERs were
originally instituted by Congress to serve veterans. They were mandated
to serve only veterans and not to replace existing workforce staff
directed to focus on veterans and their needs. This requirement is
still valid and needed more today than ever before due to the nation's
greater reliance on Reserve and Guard units to help fight the war on
terror.
Any successful job placement program requires two components:
meaningful jobs and qualified workers.
Either placing qualified workers in meaningless jobs or placing
unqualified workers in meaningful jobs is a formula for vocational
disaster--unhappy employees and employers. Repeated good job matches
are the true measures of success. VETS should be the job placement
office of first-choice rather than last resort with meaningful job
openings and providing highly qualified employees to fill those job
openings. Satisfied customers mean both employers and employees.
DVOPs and LVERs need to spend as much time in job development
efforts (finding those employers with meaningful job openings) as
matching up quality candidates to fill those positions. That means
repeated marketing the benefits of hiring former military service
members to potential employers.
Currently, there are no incentives in place to motivate employers
to seek out former military personnel for employment--such as tax
credits, government contracts, or vocational training subsidies to help
cover training costs earmarked specific for employment of veterans.
Equally important is identifying those hard-to-place candidates and
helping them to become job ready--through vocational training (on-the-
job training, apprenticeship, or technical training) or vocational
counseling (job-finding workshops). Both require funding to achieve.
The former Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act
(SMOCTA) was a highly successful vocational training and job placement
tool effectively used by DVOPs and LVERs, with measurable results, that
is no longer authorized by Congress. By all accounts from by DVOPs,
LVERs, participating employers, and participating employees, it was
money well spent.
Question 2. In support of the President's ``WIA Plus'' proposal,
the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration has
stressed that ``the current system of Federal job training programs is
too complex'' and that ``states and local communities have been
hindered by archaic rules that make it difficult to train workers and
respond quickly to economic downturns, natural disasters and shifts in
industry skill needs.'' Despite those criticisms, you have strongly
opposed removing veterans employment programs from the Labor system. If
this ``archaic'' system is not capable of quickly responding to
veterans' needs, don't we owe it to veterans to explore whether other
means of providing employment services would be more effective?
Answer. The American Legion is well aware of the statements by the
DOL Employment and Training Administration regarding the needs to
reinvent the workforce system. The American Legion has come to the
conclusion that ETA prefers to shift the veterans' program into the
mainstream where they are no longer seen as veterans' programs rather
than make them accountable, effective or efficient. A case in point is
the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002, which tasked DOL to ensure priority
of services to veterans in all DOL funded programs. However, 3 years
later, there is absolutely no evidence that this has been implemented
or if implemented how it has improved opportunities for veterans.
Legionnaires at the local level report that the State Workforce
Agencies and Local Boards have not instituted any priority for veterans
and there is no indication that DOL, has taken any actions to enforce
the law.
The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (JVA) gave the states much more
flexibility with the DVOP/LVER programs and made sweeping changes in
the prescriptive nature of the previous law. In exchange for such
changes it was mandated that veterans would be afforded, by law,
priority for services in all DOL funded programs. The DOL, State
Agencies and Local Boards have readily accepted those specific items of
the JVA that they supported but have failed to implement all of the
requirements.
Presently, DOL, including ETA and VETS have not fully instituted
the JVA, basically ignoring Congress, and they are not enforcing
veterans priority for service as prescribed by existing law. The states
claim the system is too complex. To us this is a credibility issue. At
a time when veterans' issues should be important DOL seems to be paying
lip service to veterans.
The American Legion believes that the Federal job-training program
is complex. We concur in some instances with ETA's premise that the
Federal job-training program is complex. However, we do not believe the
non-training services such as Employment Services (ES), Public Labor
Exchange, and the DVOP/LVER programs are overly complex. It appears
that the current belief system is, that training and employment service
type programs are basically the same. That is not a true statement. The
differences between WIA training programs and the services offered by
the Public Labor Exchange ES and DVOP/LVER are miles apart.
For example the training programs serve less than 10 percent of the
total population in the workforce, while ES and DVOP/LVER serve over 80
percent. The cost per individual in a training program is at least ten
times the cost for those being served by ES and DVOP/LVER. The success
of a training program is dramatically higher than that of ES and DVOP/
LVER; of course we should remember that we just spent thousands of
dollars in training an individual in a skill needed in his community so
the success rate will be higher.
Moreover, with the loosening of restrictions on the DVOP/LVER
programs there has been a steady increase in DVOP/LVER staff providing
service to non-veterans. When DVOPs and LVERs should be contacting
employers about potential job openings, they are busy meeting the needs
of non-veterans. in some situations the DVOP/LVER staff is being used
in place of other paid staff in the centers. This is a contradiction of
the basic premise of the DVOP/LVER program. The Local Board and center
managers are calling upon these dedicated veterans' employment
specialists to serve non-veterans; therefore the resultant lower
service level to veterans should not be a surprise.
The DVOP/LVER program is not performing up to desired expectations,
but then neither is the ES, WIA or entire workforce system. The State
Workforce Agencies, DOL, and Local Boards have had 3 years under JVA to
operate with fewer restrictions, less accountability and no enforcement
and yet there is no marked improvement in services to veterans.
The American Legion believes that DOL has had its chance to show
that more flexibility and less restriction would be good for the
overall system but the results are the exact opposite. The American
Legion strongly believes that DOL should increase accountability,
ensure accurate reporting and enforce the laws enacted to serve
veterans.
Until DOL, the State Workforce Agencies and Local Boards fully
enact JVA and respect the requirements inherent in the DVOP/LVER
programs, moving the DVOP/LVER programs to any other entity is a moot
point.
Question 3a. As you know, the Commission on Service members and
Veterans Transition Assistance concluded that employment services to
veterans could be improved by awarding grant funds competitively on a
state-by-state basis. If a non-State provider can demonstrate that it
has the ability to more effectively and efficiently provide employment
services to veterans, would you support allowing that provider to
compete for some or all of the grant funding that is now awarded on a
non-competitive basis?
Answer. The American Legion strongly feels that the DVOP/LVER
program should be a state program, period. The current WIA system
relies on private providers to deliver services. What we have heard
from Legionnaires at the local and state level is that these providers
change quite often. This constant change of service delivery contractor
results in a lower level of performance, more time to train staff and
slower response times to serve the communities. It is difficult to hold
people responsible or accountable when the structure and or management
scheme constantly changes. We have seen first hand that privatizing
service delivery looks good on paper but does little to enhance or
improve the actual service to the client. We need only to look at WIA
to see these results. For DVOP/LVER programs we believe management and
staff stability is a key component toward success in meeting the needs
of the entire veterans' population, to include those facing significant
employment barriers. This can only be garnered via a state program.
Question 3b. On the flip side, if a state or locality has
demonstrated an inability to effectively provide employment services to
veterans, would you support allowing other entities to compete for the
funds that have been provided to that state or locality?
Answer. The above response is incorporated by reference. The
American Legion feels that the Federal agencies which are responsible
for funding MUST also hold those entities to which funding is given
accountable for performance and that is not being done now. If DOL does
not hold the States accountable, or the States do not hold the Local
Boards accountable, who can say that DOL would hold any other entity
accountable.
On the other side, if DOL indicates that other service providers
could do better or will be held to a higher standard, then one only has
to ask why those same measures or steps are not being applied to the
States and Local Boards now. To us the problem lies squarely in the
lack of accountability by DOL over the States and Local Boards.
Question 4a. In your testimony you were critical of the Jobs for
Veterans Act. That Act implemented many of the recommendations of the
Transition Commission report which was replete with criticisms of the
law that sustained the DVOP and LVER programs as being outmoded,
inflexible, process-oriented, and overly prescriptive. Did The American
Legion not agree with the Transition Commission's conclusions?
Question 4b. When, in your opinion, were the DVOP and LVER programs
most effective and what evidence was there of that effectiveness?
Answer. The American Legion feels the DVOP/LVER programs were most
effective when DOL-VETS had an active hand in monitoring the States and
local centers and when corrective sanctions were applied for non-
performance or fiscal abuse. When the State Workforce Agencies operated
and administered the DVOP/LVER programs as a state operation they did
not abrogate their responsibility by giving the programs to the Local
Boards. There were performance standards that:
(1) Measure the services to veterans as compared to non-veterans;
(2) Are timely, at least monthly;
(3) Do not have a time lag of nine to 12 months; and
(4) Measure what is being done not just who went to work.
To get a better understanding of this, we recommend that you
examine current performance measurements used by DOL for WIA, ES and
veterans. The measurements are Entered Employment, Entered Employment
with Staff assisted services, job retention and in some cases wage
gain.
The way DOL measures success now is that any individual who
registers with the system in one quarter and goes to work within two
quarters thereafter is considered a success. The data processing system
and tax records track this automatically. Note that nowhere in the
formula does it require that the individual be provided any assistance
in securing employment! So in essence we are merely measuring the
ability of individuals to find their own jobs. Since the formula works
by quarters the number of individuals considered as the base
registrants is smaller and allows a higher success percentage than
previous methods of measurement.
For job retention, the measurement is done on those individuals who
entered employment in a quarter where they are still receiving wages
two quarters after entering the job. The data processing system and tax
records track this automatically as well. It is significant to note
that the individual does not have to be in the same job with the same
employer as when hired but merely that they have earned wages in both
quarters. We are concerned that this is not a proper way to measure
employment. One would expect that spending time in training and
providing employment services to an individual would help match the
individual's needs to the needs of an employer. The match would allow
an employer to select and hire that individual. If the individual does
not stay with that one employer for 6 months does that not call into
question the system's ability to train, serve and screen people for
employment?
The American Legion believes that in the rush to prove the success
of training and employment programs, lax measures were employed to give
the false impression of success.
In private business it is called performance inflation and those
corporations who did just that, have failed.
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama to
Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr.
Question 1. Monitoring and accountably seem to be the Achilles heel
of the VETS program. What steps would you recommend to improve the
Labor Department's performance in this area?
Answer. No response.
Question 2. One of the major barriers to employment is
homelessness. Do you think the Department of Labor is doing enough to
reach out and provide services to our homeless veterans? What steps
could VETS take to improve its outreach?
Answer. No response.
Senator Burr. Mr. Sharpe, thank you very much.
Mr. Weidman?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
Mr. Weidman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of John Patrick Rowan, the national president of
Vietnam Veterans of America, and all of us, thank you--Chairman
Craig, Senator Akaka, and you, sir, and your distinguished
colleagues--for the opportunity to present here today.
We have, since the inception of Vietnam Veterans of America
in 1978, held that employment is finally, in the end, the key.
That is the best veterans benefit. It doesn't matter whether
you are in a wheelchair, whether you have PTSD, whatever.
Helping people get to the point where they can obtain and
sustain meaningful employment should be the goal of all
veterans programs. It is the nexus. If, in fact, we are
successful with the other programs, then people will be at the
point where they can obtain and sustain a decent job that leads
somewhere.
The history of the job service goes back to 1933, and
priority of service to veterans was written into that, largely
because in 1931, as you know, we had the spectacle of American
troops firing on American veterans on the Mall. And people were
still sensitive to that.
It was not working well by the time we got to 1944, in the
middle of World War II, and therefore, as part of the laws that
were created that became known as the G.I. Bill, the LVERs, or
Local Veterans' Employment Representatives, were created. Later
on in the 1950s, we created the Veterans Employment Service and
put a DVET in each State to help monitor what was going on.
In 1976-1977, in this room, Senator Cranston held a set of
hearings where the workforce development agencies came in and
said they weren't placing any Vietnam or disabled vets because
they couldn't find them. And therefore, the DVOP program was
created by Executive Order by President Carter for a variety of
reasons, not the least of which is he had a political pressing
need at that time.
But Mr. Ron Drach, who is currently in the room, was one of
the two authors of that program, along with Dennis Rhoades.
They came up with it within 24 hours. Later on, it was locked
in the Title 38, Chapter 41.
From 1977 on--and I am as guilty of this and VVA is, as
every other veterans organization--we have tinkered with
Chapter 41 of Title 38, adding more and more proscriptive and
prescriptive measures to try and get the local office manager
to let the DVOP and LVERs do their job. That is basically what
it comes down to. And it didn't work.
Beginning in the late 1990s, we moved toward a more
outcome-driven system. Now at the same time, since the 1980s,
GAO has pushed the idea of the One-Stops, and let us take all
the fetters off of all the systems, and therefore all boats
will rise. That was never true of veterans. Otherwise, there
wouldn't have been a DVOP and LVER program, and there wouldn't
have been the strong system of monitoring.
At the same time, they switched over from counting
placements to entered employment rates. The entered employment
rates, as my colleague Mr. Sharpe just pointed out, is
absolutely meaningless. It is a classic example of the ``post
hoc, ergo prompter hoc'' fallacy, where you walk in and you are
technically registered at the job service or at the One-Stop,
and you get a job later on, and you have never been back there.
In fact, they made you so mad you wouldn't go back. They are
taking a positive termination because you went out and got your
own dog-gone job.
In that system, the bad news is that we have no measure.
The good news for Senator Obama is the stats that he is looking
at are absolutely meaningless in terms of how well they are
doing in their State versus other States.
The question then is what do we need to do now? The first
thing, as you point out rightly, we need decent stats. I don't
know if you are familiar with this, sir, but this is a special
survey of veterans. It is done every 2 years. This latest one
was released in July 2004, but it was actually done in 2003.
There is another one that is already due, and it needs to
be broken out by combat versus noncombat, theater of operation.
Then you get an idea of who is coming back from OIF, OEF, who
has a problem, number one. And number two, they used to break
this out with a table that was percentage of disability.
Those who were 60 percent or more service-connected
disabled, virtually all of them were out of the labor force,
and those that were in, their unemployment rate was also in the
20 percent range. They stopped doing that and masked it with
those who were doing better, who were the 10 and 30 percent
service-connected disabled. We need to go back to getting stats
to getting back at the crux of the issue.
The keys that drive this are two things. You have no
sanctions now. You only have what we call the ``nuclear
option,'' which is take all the money away. It has only ever
happened once, in the State of Maine, and it happened in the
1970s. And they contracted with the State American Legion for 1
year. They cleaned up their act with the State workforce
development agency, and they gave them the grant right back.
Most Governors will go crazy. They don't have the political
clout to take all of the money away. So you have no sanctions.
You have no flexible option. In terms of what you have is
either incentive grants or non-incentive grants. By not getting
incentive grants, then it essentially becomes a sanction. And
we believe that that is what we need for DVOPs, LVERs. That is
believed what we need on other grants from Labor. It works.
Seven percent of the money, of the WIA money that goes into
every State is kept by the Governor as an incentive grant. And
they give that out to the local service, to the local WIB,
based on whether or not they meet the State's priorities, and
those priorities never include veterans. They are usually
people on welfare, dislocated homemakers, and youth. It never
says veterans.
When they first come in, 51 percent of that WIB by law must
be business people. They look at the proposal. They open it to
the back. They look at the budget, and they say, ``What is this
7 percent?'' And they say, ``Well, that is the incentive
grant.'' ``Well, you mean that is like a bonus?'' ``Yes.''
``What do we have to do to get the bonus?'' And they direct 93
percent of their activities and their funding toward getting
that 7 percent.
We have repeatedly suggested to the Secretary of Labor,
three succeeding Secretaries now, that out of the Secretary's
incentive grant that they set aside some for veterans and
disabled veterans. We would urge that that now be locked in the
statute, that it has to be there. People will study to the test
if there is cash, American, involved. That is that.
HVRP, Homeless Veterans Re-Integration Program, I didn't
talk about. But it is important to talk about here because, in
fact, it is the only part of Labor where there is true
accountability, where they track for 180 days what happens to
that person after they get a job, and it has the best cost per
placement of any of the programs administered by Department of
Labor. Not veterans programs, of any program.
It is administered through the community-based
organizations. Many of them are the same ones who were created
in the 1970s because the job service was not responding to
returning veterans then to deliver employment services and deal
with supportive services and barriers to employment.
There is a great deal that needs to be addressed here. Most
importantly, we need a national strategy. We believe that the
only way you can get there is essentially a convocation. There
is no national strategy now, despite some people saying that
there is or it is the Hire Vet Committee.
We would encourage this Committee to get together with your
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--you, sir, and
Senator Craig and Senator Akaka--as well as with the folks on
the other side of the Hill and invite in industry, invite in
the administration, invite in all the players, including the
veterans service organizations, and say we are going to take 2
days and come up with something that makes sense.
This kind of colloquia was done on the House side a number
of years ago, and we thought we had a deal. And the workforce
development agencies kicked holes in it. It said that most JVA
provisions have been carried out, but not without some
challenges.
In fact, that is not true. The only parts of JVA that were
implemented were the parts that the workforce development
agencies wanted, that the States wanted, that gave them ``more
flexibility.'' All the ones having to do with accountability,
they haven't even begun to make a plan to make a plan to
implement.
We believe that that begins with regulations, begins with
FCJL regulations--Federal contract job listings regulations--
and last, but not least on that, if you have a question on
FCJL, I have more to say.
I thank your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a
little bit of time into the red light.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman, Director of Government
Relations, Vietnam Veterans of America
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of our National President,
John P. Rowan, Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) thanks you for the
opportunity to appear here today to express our views on this vital
veterans' issue of how well the Local Veteran Employment Representative
(LVER) program and the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) is
working, particularly for disabled veterans, recently separated service
members, and those veterans most at risk of becoming homeless. My name
is Rick Weidman, and I serve as Director of Government Relations for
VVA.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The Employment Service was created as a non-statutory entity in
1915, under President Wilson. The United States Employment Service was
created as a statutorily mandated entity in 1933 as part of the Social
Security Act, along with the legislation that established unemployment
insurance. The Wagner-Peyser Act, as it is commonly known, established
``priority of service'' for veterans who sought assistance in finding
employment. Employers made the argument to Congress that if business
was going to pay taxes to pay for unemployment checks to former
workers, there needed to be a strong effort to get them back to work,
thereby reducing the UI tax rate for the employer.
From the outset of the reconstituted Employment Service, veterans
were legally accorded ``priority of service.'' Veteran's organizations
made the argument that veterans should be first in line for any such
assistance. As this was a mere 2 years following the World War I
veterans' march on Washington, and the spectacle of American troops
firing on American veterans on the national Mall, Congress and the
President agreed and saw fit to ensure that veterans, who had
sacrificed the most, received priority in referral to job openings and
for other services.
CREATION OF THE LVER PROGRAM
Unfortunately, a mere decade later (and in the middle of World War
II), ``veterans priority of service'' was not working very well at the
local level in many instances. Essentially Congress found that there
was no meaningful quality assurance system to ensure that veterans
received their rights to priority. Therefore, in 1944, as part of the
set of laws known as the GI Bill, ``priority of service was reiterated,
and the Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) program grants
to the states created, in order to help ensure that priority of service
actually happened in each and every office. The theory was that all
local employment service office managers were intent on obeying the
law, and that where veterans did not receive ``priority of service''
the LVER would monitor all activity, make the office manager aware of
any problems caused by a few ``bad apples,'' and the problem would be
corrected. That is why the LVER, by law, was supposed to report
directly to the local office manager. While this ``fix'' helped in many
instances, it was still problematic and uneven in how well it
functioned.
Also beginning in 1944 and 1945, many cities began to emulate the
model first promulgated in Bridgeport, Connecticut, to establish
veterans multi-service centers, with VA benefits counselors and other
VA services providers, employment service representatives, unemployment
claims examiners, and any other available public and private resources
all existing under a single roof, in order to coordinate the response
of the entire community to welcome home the returning veterans. Most of
these had governing boards that were like a model Rotary club, with
representatives of the various aspects of the business community, the
clergy, political leaders, veterans' organizations, civic organizations
such as the Elks, labor unions, and other key elements of that
particular community. In this way it really was a total response of
each community to the returning veterans, and therefore an evolving
strategy in each community.
Similarly, the GI Bill provided for farm training, vocational
training, and other skills training as well as attending college (which
for many was training that led to better jobs than they could have ever
dreamed of before their service in the war). In fact, more than 51
percent of the GI Bill usage was for training other than accredited 4-
year colleges. Many veterans were able to attend college because of the
educational benefits and the ``52-50'' club, which allowed them to have
$50 unemployment payments (what we today call UCX) for a full year to
get themselves settled and to find a college to attend or a program to
pursue.
SELF EMPLOYMENT AND SMALL BUSINESS AS A MEANS TO EMPLOYMENT
For many, the VA also administered a program to help veterans
establish small business concerns that included direct loans to start
their business. This resulted in countless very small businesses, as
well as many firms that grew into medium and large companies, all
because it was part of a true nation strategy to assist returning
veterans to develop a way to earn a living, either by working for
someone else, or by starting their own small businesses. Among many
other symbols of this highly successful program was the ubiquitous
``Veteran's Taxi'' found in cities and towns all across America.
In response to continuing problems, a system of ``Director,
Veterans Employment Services'' was created with a Director in each
state who was a Federal employee. One of the problems from the outset
was that there was inexact control at the state and local level as to
the actual performance of staff because all of the employees were state
workers who were funded by Federal dollars, and therefore not subject
to direct Federal control or means of accountability. Some of these
Directors were very good, but others were not as responsible or
energetic. While they were all ostensibly civil servants, the selection
process was (and still largely is) highly political. In many states the
employment service was not responsive to the needs of Vietnam veterans.
VETERAN COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS
The League of Cities/Conference of Mayors created a network of
community-based organizations (CBO) to attempt to deal with this
problem in medium sized ties. Some of those, such as the Veterans
Outreach Center in Rochester, New York, and the Rhode Island Veterans
Assistance Center in Providence, Rhode Island still exist. Other CBOs
came into being because the need was great and Vietnam veterans stepped
forward to organize and find funding sources to meet the need. Many of
the CBOs who are providers of multiple services to homeless veterans
and other very low-income veterans came into existence this way. These
include Swords to Plowshares in San Francisco, Vietnam Veterans of
California (formerly Flower of the Dragon), and others. In fact, the
community-based model works to deal with the multiple barriers that
many veterans face and must surmount in their quest to obtain and
sustain meaningful employment at a living wage.
There were several other efforts to help returning Vietnam
veterans, including the National Alliance of Business (NAB) initiative
for veterans using a good deal of Federal money, which had mixed
results at best in terms of actually placing veterans, particularly
disabled veterans and veterans with barriers to employment, into
permanent jobs.
CREATION OF THE DASVE POSITION AT LABOR
In 1976, legislation was enacted that created the position of
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment, in an
effort to try and bring some cohesion and accountability to an
employment service system that was clearly not working for veterans.
Similarly, the Comprehensive Employment & Training Act (CETA) was
problematic in regard to any of the funds going to programs to assist
veterans. CETA had succeeded the Manpower Development Training Act
(MDTA), which in turn had succeeded the Office of Employment
Opportunity (OEO).
These entities were created to make available cognitive and skill
training funds, as well as funds for paying participants while they
were being trained in public service jobs. An additional goal of these
programs was to circumvent what was perceived as sexist and racist bias
in some of the state employment service agencies.
However, these entities in many states were often not any more open
to meeting the needs of Vietnam veterans than the employment service
agencies were. In response, the Congress created what was known as
Title II-D of CETA that could only be used for Vietnam veterans. Sadly,
many states and sub-state entities returned these funds unused rather
than let them be utilized for the intended use of assisting younger
veterans with problems to surmount their difficulties and secure decent
jobs with a future.
The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) replaced the CETA system
itself in 1982. Despite efforts by the veterans' service organizations
the Act included no special provision for veterans.
CREATION OF THE DVOP PROGRAM
As the problems remained with the employment service agencies
themselves, the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) was created in
1977, and enacted into law in 1979 in response to the state
unemployment services testifying to Senator Cranston's Committee that
they were not placing many Vietnam or disabled veterans because they
``could not find them.''
As the Employment & Training Administration (ETA) at the Department
of Labor was still ignoring the problems of veterans in securing proper
services in many states, despite there now being a Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Labor who was supposed to be able to focus attention of
ETA and the U.S. Employment Service on the needs of veterans.
Therefore, Senator Strom Thurmond, with the close cooperation of the
Honorable G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, took steps to secure an additional
modification in the law that created the post of Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Veterans Employment & Training. It also established the
Veterans Employment & Training Service (VETS) as an entity separate
from the Employment & Training Administration (ETA). Theoretically, the
Assistant Secretary for VETS and the Assistant Secretary for ETA are
equals. The reality, particularly in the wake of WIA which wiped out
the legal requirement on the states for ``priority of service'' to
veterans, the fact that ETA has many billions in comparison to the
millions that VETS is allocated, and the dismantling of many of the
accountability mechanisms that had existed prior to WIA and the advent
of the One Stops, the positions can no longer be realistically
considered equal by anyone.
Enhancements and additional provisions were added to Chapter 41 of
Title 38, United States Code almost every year during the 1980s and
1990s to try and get the state employment services to consistently, in
each state, accord proper treatment and services to veterans,
particularly disabled veterans.
NVTI
The most important of these enhancements was the creation and
funding of the National Veterans Employment & Training Institute
(NVTI), currently operated by the University of Colorado at Denver. The
VSOs had been pushing hard for this move, as there was little or no
substantive training for DVOPs, LVERs, and others within the system,
and no place to get such quality training that would improve
performance. Creation of NVTI and its utilization had more positive
impact than any other step taken during this period. NVTI training
remains first rate, and for those who use it, the NVTI Resource Center
is just extraordinary.
PASSAGE OF WIA
In 1998 Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that
replaced the JTPA as well as most of the Wagner-Peyser Act. WIA was
designed to promote, if indeed not force, the creation of the ``One
Stop Centers'' at the service delivery level where all of the workforce
development funds and programs, both public and some private, could be
found at one central location. Much of the thought and philosophy that
drove the various provisions of WIA came directly form GAO reports that
were principally the work of Sigurd R. Nilsen, who was also the leader
of the team that performed the work in the recently completed report,
GAO-06-176, ``Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions
Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to
Veterans' Employment Services.'' (December 30, 2005)
The primary idea behind the One Stop centers that Mr. Nilsen has
been promoting for almost 20 years is that if we just eliminate all of
the fetters on ``special programs'' we will eliminate duplicative
services, and be able to have more than enough resources to provide
better services to all sub-sets of the population.
VVA doubts that this is the case in general, and it certainly is
not true for veterans, particularly disabled veterans and other
veterans with who require significant assistance. VVA notes that
despite the best efforts of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, the
amendment he attempted to insert into the WIA bill that would have
preserved ``priority of service'' for veterans, and which contained at
least some provisions that would promote accountability, was brushed
aside in the rush to eliminate all fetters. With Senator Thurmond's
help, we were able to fend off efforts to lift all restrictions in how
LVERs and DVOPs could be used by the states.
By 1998 it was clear that ``prescriptive'' and ``proscriptive''
solutions would simply not work, for all of the reasons noted above. An
extraordinary series of roundtables and semi-formal sessions were held
on the other side of the Hill, but with at least some staff
participation from this Committee, with all stake holders to try and
achieve a results based model that would focus on outcomes, and not on
activities that may or may net help a veteran get or keep a job. That
legislation, which would have rewarded real performance with additional
funds, was ultimately stymied in September 2000 by the (in the view of
VVA) inappropriate lobbying activities of the then Assistant Secretary
of Labor for Veterans Employment and Training.
JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT
The Jobs for Veterans Act was passed in response to problems with
properly serving returning service members, and in response to the call
of VSOs to take steps to restore ``priority of service,'' but to do so
to ALL programs funded by or through the Department of Labor,
reflecting a much changed reality from the situation in 1933. To some
degree, the model was the ``Veterans Bill of Rights for Employment
Services,'' which was propagated as an Executive Order in 1988 in New
York, and subsequently codified as Chapter 554 of New York State law.
The problem with both the JVA and the New York law is that there are no
sanctions for ignoring the law. Frankly, money needs to go to those
doing a good job, and less to those who do not do a good job.
Please let me note that I cannot emphasize too much that nothing in
this statement should be taken as a criticism of DVOPs and LVERs. Some
of the finest and most dedicated veterans' advocates (and finest
people, period) I have ever had the pleasure and honor of knowing are
DVOPs or LVERs. These folks are eclectic, as any large group would be,
and some are more skilled and effective than others. However, as a
group, these fine Americans who often do great work, no matter what
they have to do to accomplish the mission, always impress me and no
matter how much they may be punished for trying to do their job
correctly, and despite how poorly they are paid in some states.
Just as there are many individual veteran staff doing a great job,
there are some states, like South Carolina, North Carolina, South
Dakota, North Dakota, and others that have always done a great job for
veterans because it is ingrained in their corporate culture by
consistently having fine leadership that is committed to veterans over
a long period of time. There are also individual office managers who
fully support services to veterans, and who go out of their way to
support the DVOPs and LVERs in their area, as well as using other
resources to help get the job done.
GAO Report 06-176 has some severe methodological faults, and
therefore draws conclusions based on suspect information. VVA points
out that GAO sent out questionnaires to the DVETS and to the
Administrators of each of the Workforce Development Agencies, after
verifying the instrument. However, the report stated that they made
little or no effort to attempt to verify any of the information
provided. Therefore, their conclusion that the JVA has generally
improved services to veterans is based on nothing that could be
considered rational, substantiated data. This is just silliness.
Similarly, the report notes that veterans can receive services from
a non-DVOP or non-LVER if they are considered job ready. VVA agrees
that this should be the case, given that ``priority of service'' has
been re-established as the law. However, there are so few what is
called ``Wagner-Peyser'' staff left out there; in many instances all
veterans are sent to the veteran's staff.
The system is every bit as ``broke'' today as it was before the
passage of the Jobs for Veterans Act, with even more financial and
operational problems. It is still not performance and results oriented
in any meaningful way. The current measure of ``placements'' is
intellectually dishonest, and a preposterous example of the ``post hoc,
ergo proper hoc'' logical fallacy.
The Secretary of Labor put the Assistant Secretary of Labor for ETA
in charge of implementing the Jobs for Veterans Act. Given the history
of ETA, it should come as no surprise that they are refusing to
promulgate regulations implementing the various aspects of the law.
Because the local entities under the WIA set up are primarily
controlled by former JTPA entities, who never had any ``priority of
service'' in their programs before, it is the view of VVA that without
regulations there is not even a chance of proper and accountable
implementation.
CHALLENGES? ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTED
Similarly, the report notes in very large type, ``Most JVA
Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but not without some Challenges.'' In
fact, ETA and USDoL only implemented the aspects of JVA that reduce
oversight and provide greater ``flexibility'' (e.g., only one onsite
inspection every 5 years, new and more general job duties for veterans
staff), while NONE of the provisions that accord veterans ``priority of
service,'' improve states accountability for increasing veterans'
employment in their state, or even having a plan to make a plan as to
how to gather data to monitor what is happening to veterans in a given
state. The report does note that 21 states did not have ANY data
available more than 3 years after enactment of JVA, but considers that
fact one of the ``some challenges'' remaining.
The Department of labor has moved to implement all of the
provisions that the Workforce Development Agencies wanted, and none of
those that those entities did not want in the JVA (but that the VSOs
argued hard to include). This should perhaps not be surprising, as
there was extensive contact between the Assistant Secretary for ETA and
the representatives of those agencies and virtually no contact with the
veterans' service organizations.
WHAT IS NEEDED NOW
First and foremost, we need a true national strategy to deal
properly with the returning service members. The Employer's Committee,
which was touted as the President's plan, was simply inadequate in
concept. It is time for a National Veterans Employment Conference to
assemble the key players and produce a plan that is funded and backed
by the Administration as well as this body.
Further, what is needed today is a system that focuses on placement
of the highest priority veterans, who are special disabled veterans
(especially catastrophically disabled veterans), recently separated
veterans and recently d-mobilized members of the National Guard and
Reserve, and on veterans who are homeless or ``at risk.'' We must move
to a system that has additional monetary rewards for placements and
strong measurable results for veterans, particularly disabled veterans,
as opposed to just putting out the same amount of funds whether a state
does a good job or a poor job. The entire system must be placed on a
system of monetary rewards that follow good or outstanding performance.
We must also get away from the notion that this is a ``cheap''
process, and focus on quality placements for those most in need. The
veterans' staff members need to be unleashed from the yoke of the local
office managers who in some cases hold them back. As with their agency,
they too must be held accountable for measurable performance. The state
work force development agencies at the state and local levels should
have first bid on the funds available, but if the performance is not
there, then state directors for USDoL, VETS should be free to contract
with other public or private entities who will get the job done.
Further, there must be all-out resistance and rejection of the ill-
conceived and cynical ``WIA-Plus'' effort to use veteran program
dollars for other purposes that was proposed last year. If the states
were going to pay attention to the special needs of veterans without
monitoring and veteran specific grants, they would have already done
it. Additionally, we need additional employer incentives similar to the
veterans job training act of the early 1980s that worked so well, as
well as further latitude in the Montgomery GI Bill that will allow more
focus on vocational and apprentice training.
A NATIONAL STRATEGY AND PLAN IS IMPERATIVE
There simply must be a national strategy to deal with the returning
service members from the Global War on Terrorism. More than one million
service members have already rotated through Iraq alone. If the
administration will not move to fashion such a results-oriented plan,
then we call on you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Buyer, as well as your
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reach out and call a
convocation of public and private entities to put together a real
action plan to make a difference, as was done after World War II.
I have here two books that describe what was done at the local
level in the majority of American cities that fashioned such results
focused efforts after that war, and made a positive difference in the
lives of the majority of veterans returning home. Perhaps it is time to
look to the successes after World War II to learn what is the best
course of action today.
We must think anew, in order not to fail the brave young men and
women defending us in military service today.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all of us at VVA, I thank you for the
opportunity to present our views here today. We would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama to Richard F. Weidman
Question 1. Monitoring and accountably seem to be the Achilles heel
of the VETS program. What steps would you recommend to improve the
Labor Department's performance in this area?
Answer. No response.
Question 2. One of the major barriers to employment is
homelessness. Do you think the Department of Labor is doing enough to
reach out and provide services to our homeless veterans? What steps
could VETS take to improve its outreach?
Answer. No response.
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Larry E. Craig to Richard F.
Weidman
Question 1a. It appears to me that some of the functions that would
be performed by the Veterans Job Development Corps would overlap with
functions that already should be performed by Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVERs), such as job search and interview training. So,
could it be redundant to fund those programs as well as the Corps you
proposed?
Answer. No response.
Question 1b. If so, would the Veterans Job Development Corps be
prepared to compete for a portion of the funding now allocated to the
DVOP and LVER programs?
Answer. No response.
Question 2. In your testimony, you expressed concern about the
roughly 40 percent of veteran participants who do NOT enter employment
after receiving services from the One Stop Career Centers. I share your
concern. Do you think: more should be done to track these veterans--to
find out who they are and why the One-Stop services did not help them
to find employment? Could that information be useful in figuring out
what more could be done to help these veterans find jobs?
Answer. No response.
Question 3. One on-going concern about the structure of the DVOP
and LVER programs is that it does not encourage service to those most
in need--those veterans who may require the most time-consuming
assistance. How would you ensure that the Veterans Job Development
Corps would provide all necessary services to those veterans? Would
performance measures be weighted in some fashion?
Answer. No response.
Senator Burr. We certainly thank you for your testimony, as
I do all of you.
I know that the Committee and the Chairman may have some
questions. Rather than try to wade through his, I am going to
suggest that you may get them writing, where it is appropriate
if, in fact, his questions haven't already been answered.
Which allows me to go to some areas that really come
directly from your testimony, and I will be very candid on some
of the questions that I ask. Some of them will be leading to
try to figure out areas that you might have stimulated some
thought where we can achieve the outcome, maybe not exactly
like we are doing it today.
Clearly, Richard, I heard you say incentives, incentives,
incentives. I am pleased at the fact that the Department of
Labor stayed in the room for your testimony. That doesn't
always happen, and I commend them for doing that.
I think it would be very interesting for them to look at
the States that say that they can't offer incentives because of
regulations, policies, collective bargaining to see if, in
fact, they do incentives on other programs in their States, and
they just use this as a convenience to say ``we can't do it in
this case.'' I think I have probably said enough to get them to
look at that.
Clearly, I think it is difficult to believe that you can
truly assess the success of a program if, in fact, there is no
downside, meaning there is no threat that without performance,
you don't lose something. And I understand that to take it away
and do nothing is no value. I agree.
But you went into an interesting area because in this
country, we have an industry that flourishes with job
placement. You were on a specific area, but we have a much
broader area. And you know, I would ask you to comment. If we
took all the money that we are trying to put into veterans
employment today and we took it over into the private placement
world and say, ``For everyone you place, here is what you
get,'' what would happen?
Mr. Poriotis. Rick used the term ``incent by cash.'' There
are 38,000 retained executive search firms with siloed
functional and professional areas. They make a living doing
this. They make a living accessing and championing and finding
those hidden jobs and putting people in it. Often, their
candidates are turned down two, three, four times, and they
will go back a variety of ways to push the edge of the envelope
to get them across the threshold.
Senator Burr. And most of these are in a profession where
they get zero unless they have a successful job.
Mr. Poriotis. You asked the question before. How many LVERs
and DVOPs were veterans? But you didn't ask the corresponding
question. How many of them have ever placed anyone? How many of
them have ever worked in the corporate human resources or
talent acquisition or staffing area?
Because if you coupled that criteria together with the DVOP
and LVER, you have circled the loop. But I don't think that is
going to happen. I think what they do is very, very fine in
terms of the nurturing and the care for the veteran. What they
can't do is and what they haven't been doing is corralling and
influencing the influencers who do the hiring at all of the
small and mid and large size businesses by corralling this
industry.
This industry of careerists who make a living in doing what
we want the VETS to do have never been approached to find the
hot buttons, be it cash or kudos. In all these hearings I have
been at, no one has ever brought in these senior search and
recruitment entities to ask them to work with VETS. So it is an
interesting proposition you make.
Senator Burr. I don't want anybody in the room to believe
that I am suggesting that we chart a new course today. But I
believe that highlighting some of the options that exist might
be a stimulus for us to look a little deeper at the programs
that we currently have and figure out how to make them work
because now there are some alternatives that come into play.
I am particularly touched by the chart that was up earlier
with the 20- to 24- year old veteran and the disparity, as John
Thune alluded to it. You know, from my background in business,
it would tend to make me look at that and ask one obvious
question.
Is this age group of vets actually a group that never went
through the interview process for a job because they entered
the military at 18 or 19 years old, they are now kicking out of
the military, and for the first time, they are going into an
interview process with many people who are seasoned at it?
Mr. Poriotis. We brought on Evan Gattis, a general, to run
our center, who had run all of Army recruitment, and he often
quipped that most of these programs at the Federal level,
including TAP and VETS, teach you how to write a resume, dress
for success, and develop charm school. He said, ``We don't need
that. We need a network.''
I believe that the higher unemployment for that group is
because they don't have a navigational guide to connect with
the local employer. I have talked to hundreds of persons in
that category who are surrounded by local employers for whom
the people trying to help them have never met.
So we can't entrust the VETS folks to meet those local
employers and sustain relationships with them because they
don't have the time or the resources or the training. But I do
think that lack of a navigational connection, and I think none
of this will work and will take many more years unless you can
create what I call the ``rebranding'' of military service among
America's employers.
While a Bob Nardelli is doing this within the framework of
Home Depot, what I would do from a marketing perspective is
bring Nardelli to the conventions of retailers and home
builders and building supply folks and have him articulate this
to develop corporate envy.
Senator Burr. Let me stop you, if I can, because I want to
get the comments of our other two panelists relative to the
branding concern that was raised. That military service is no
longer perceived by an employer as a benefit to that
individual, but it could be perceived as a negative. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Poriotis. I am just saying that when you look at these
brilliant marketing and branding people, and they look at the
equity in the brand, military service has a brand, but the
equity has been diluted over the last 30 years of all-volunteer
service because of the distancing of the American employer and
the staffing people and the gatekeepers from this asset.
Senator Burr. Agreement, disagreement? Comment?
Mr. Weidman. ``Vetism,'' as we call it, is very much for
real. Unfortunately, sexism and racism in this country are very
much alive, but so is vetism. And what makes it even more
insidious, sir, is that people won't admit to it.
There was a study done in 1985 by a gentleman by the name
of James Bordieri. He headed up a team at Depauw University
that looked into Fortune 500 companies. And they used dummy
resumes that where the only major difference was you were a
veteran, clearly a veteran, but not in Vietnam; clearly a
veteran that served in theater, a combat vet in Vietnam; or you
were clearly a nonvet.
And they found, as you went up the chain, significant
prejudice by these employers against veterans in general, but
particularly against those who served in a combat theater of
operation. And these were human resources types. And when asked
why that was true, they said, ``We don't want any problems.''
So it was all the negative stuff. It was all the things the
Assistant Secretary here said a minute ago that when we went in
1960s, that we didn't have a lot of skill sets. That is just
not true. The Vietnam army was the best army ever fielded in
terms of education, and these young people far outstrip us.
Personally, I was a college graduate and one of 13 George Cobb
fellows at Colgate University. So I resent to say that I didn't
have any skill sets whatsoever.
So vetism is for real. How do you change that perception?
It takes a number of things, and frankly, we should bring back
Veterans Job Training Act to do the incentives with the small
business because it worked.
Senator Burr. I want to apologize because I have got a
place I have got to be at 1 p.m., and I think we are going to
go into votes. And I want to get a couple of other questions
in, if I could.
Should we have incentives for companies that hire vets?
Mr. Poriotis. No.
Senator Burr. No?
Mr. Poriotis. No. It is sort of radical. It is
counterintuitive. I think the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service, by the very fact that it is positioning these people
free of charge, no good deed goes unpunished. No good deed goes
unpunished. The value to the employer is when they pay for
something in terms of the placement side.
The other side is we went around and visited 200 senior
executive corps from 1997 to 2001, and we began to call it
``operation forehead slap.'' Because when we would articulate
the value of this asset, many of the senior people developing
the strategy for staffing in their major corporations would
actually literally slap their forehead.
But I don't think incentives are going to--it will work
with some companies, but I think the overall creation of a
demand that this asset brings dollars and P&L to a company.
Because we have asked the brilliant person who developed the
Volvo campaign, and he said, as he did a study for us, well,
answer this question. ``I would buy a Volvo because?'' ``It is
safe.''
We have asked American employers, ``I want to hire a
military person because?'' You can't get the answer.
Senator Burr. Mr. Sharpe?
Mr. Sharpe. I just think many of the service members aren't
ready for the job market, and I can use my own unit as an
example. We deployed to Iraq in 2003, returned 2004. I was
really shocked at the number of lower enlisted who became
unemployed. Many of them left the military because they just
weren't ready for the job market.
Many of them that were in school, it was turning out was
taking them 5 to 7 years to graduate because of these constant
deployments. And as you know, if you don't have your degree, it
is going to be difficult to find a decent job.
And there were many others who were under employed. Out of
those individuals, many of them just gave up. Others who worked
for the Federal Government returned to a hostile work
environment and also started looking for other jobs. I thought
this was just a symptom of my own unit, since I spent 14 years
on active duty and then went to the Reserves.
But a few months later, I was involved in the training
program where we were training 1,100 soldiers to take our place
in Iraq. Those of us that were doing the training were ones
that had already been to Iraq, and I was really shocked to find
out a lot of those individuals were unemployed, or they were
either fired from their jobs, or they returned homeless.
And again, many of those, the younger ones that were in
school, had put off their education and were trying to find
part-time jobs just to make ends meet. It would seem more
appropriate if these individuals had some sort of TAP program
to go to.
We can talk about Department of Labor and the One-Stops,
but it is really interesting that a lot of these individuals
don't even know the One-Stops exist. Those on active duty, it
seems like in some cases we have visited various TAP programs
around the country. We visited Aberdeen Proving Grounds a few
months ago. They actually have DVOPs and LVERs as part of the
TAP program. And those individuals made an effort to have job
fairs on that particular post, and they seemed to have quite a
bit of success getting people employed prior to their
departure.
They even had a program for the Reserves and National
Guard, and it didn't depend on if they were coming from another
State or not. They were still assisted. They were still able to
find individuals who were interested in what they did have. I
think that is an important factor too.
The other thing was the licensing and certification. The
military really does a good job as far as training individuals,
but it always doesn't transfer over to the private sector. I
think there should be a closer relationship between those
private entities that would be interested in the training that
these individuals receive, and that would also help transfer
them into decent employment once they leave.
Senator Burr. You raise some very important points, and I
think the one thing that I walk away from this hearing truly
believing is there is no silver bullet. There is not one thing
that, all of a sudden, over night makes the employment of vets
an automatic thing. That it does take a level of cooperation
that we have yet to fine-tune to the degree that we have.
Let me make two statements, if I can. For me personally,
the thing that concerns me the most right now is that we have
this incredible blueprint, which is the current activation, to
tell us in some numbers of years exactly what the pressure on
this program is going to be. I think for any of us to ignore
the fact that we are going to have an influx of people, in
addition to what we have seen in the past, that have this need
is to hide our head in the sand. So I hope we realize that it
is going to begin to ramp up the need.
The second thing is that as we talk about employers, I am
not sure that I yet know whether it is a reluctance by
employers to hire vets or whether it is a problem in our
placement process to get vets placed? And it may be a
combination of the both of them.
Mr. Poriotis. Senator, the President's National Hire
Veterans Committee was engaged to educate America's employers,
but never did a baseline to do a corporate perception analysis
to actually answer your question. What do the employers
perceive, and how do they perceive, and how do you quantify
that perception? How can you market and place if you don't have
a base from which to come?
Senator Burr. That is why it makes it difficult for me to
look at Labor and downstream from Labor and be overly critical.
It makes it impossible for me to meet with anybody other than
the CEO of Home Depot or a participating company and scold them
because it all has to come together.
And I think on behalf of the Chairman and the Ranking
Member and the Committee, I want to thank you for your
willingness to come in to share your insight with us, your
commitment to continue to work with this program to see that
the outcome changes. I assure you that this is an issue of high
interest to all the members. So expect some questions, and
please give us your honest and candid views as to how we move
forward with this in a true partnership.
At some point in the future, if we have got all the answers
to the questions and we still haven't succeeded with the
outcome, then maybe the discussion will be exactly what we do
next to make sure that that outcome changes.
Again, I thank you for your testimony today. This hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Roger B. Madsen, Director of the Idaho Department
of Commerce and Labor
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ``Jobs for
Veterans Act''. As the Director of the Idaho Department of Commerce and
Labor and former Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), I appreciate
the Committee's dedication to enhancing employment and training
opportunities for our job-seeking veterans and your commitment to
helping us bring skilled veterans together with our businesses.
The ``Jobs for Veterans Act'' that modified Title 38, Chapter 41 in
2002 was a significant improvement over previous legislation in that it
now allows for flexibility in how we serve both veterans and employers.
Overall it has been a resounding success and a giant leap forward in
several areas. We believe the following are areas of significant
improvement:
<bullet> Integration of Local Veterans Employment Representatives
(LVERs) and Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) personnel into
One-Stop operations at the local office level in a carefully crafted
state plan--much like a business plan. We believe the law helps ensure
that veterans who need help getting back to work have ready access to
information, trained personnel, specially trained veterans
representatives and other resources that will help them integrate into
the local workforce.
<bullet> The change in the roles and responsibilities outlined in
the Jobs for Veterans Act gives us specific guidance about the roles
and responsibilities, but allows us the flexibility to decide on duties
and assignments within the prescribed roles. While we would like even
more flexibility (to allow veteran representative to help with
Unemployment Claims for veterans, for example), the Jobs for Veterans
Act is a significant step in the right direction that allows us to put
our efforts toward current and emerging challenges with Idaho's veteran
population.
<bullet> The option to have part-time DVOPs in some of our offices
has increased our flexibility. Because of cutbacks in recent years, we
have funded veterans' representatives in only eleven of our 24 offices,
a decrease of 50 percent from 10 years ago when we had VETS-funded
representatives in 22 of our offices. Now that we have the option of
using both LVERs and DVOPs in a part-time role, we can focus our
limited resources on where they are most needed. Although we still
don't have the option of having an LVER or DVOP funded partially from
both programs, the Jobs for Veterans Act did give us significantly
increased flexibility.
The Jobs for Veterans Act has had a very positive impact on
services to veterans and we laud the congressional efforts to give us
the tools necessary to serve our veteran population the best way
possible. However, there have been a couple of provisions in the law
that impacted us negatively.
The revised state funding formula has an unfavorable impact on
Idaho's Veterans Representative staffing. The current formula ties our
funding to Idaho's veteran population and Idaho's unemployment rate--
averaged over a 3-year period. These two factors (population and
unemployment) are the only two factors considered in allocating
resources to Idaho, and unfortunately, they don't take into account
Idaho's rural & geographical issues, labor market conditions, seasonal
fluctuations, underemployment and historical use of funds.
In rural states like Idaho, we try to be all things to all people,
at least in our smaller, more rural areas. In these rural areas, our
employment service is sometimes the principal resource for information
to meet a variety of needs such as homelessness, health care, education
and employment. While employment eventually resolves many of these
issues, some of the best work, the life-changing work that attracts
people to the social services we provide, does not result in immediate
employment.
We have about 89,928 working aged veterans in Idaho. A 2005 GAO
report mentions that nationally, 9.4 percent of veterans participate in
a One-stop System. In Idaho, about 16.5 percent--nearly double the
national average--of employment aged veterans (18-65 years of age)
received service from our Idaho One-Stops each year and over a 3-year
period, we have worked with 42 percent of the state's veterans.
For all of these reasons we would recommend that a revised funding
formula be devised to put more emphasis on rewarding the processes that
lead to positive changes in the lives of our customers as much as the
eventual act of helping them obtain employment--and not just
unemployment rates.
Additionally, we are one of 26 states that did not participate in
the Incentive Award Program established by the Jobs for Veterans Act in
fiscal year 2004. While there is no state law that forbids
participation, perspectives from three different working groups in the
past 2 years have come to the same conclusions . . . that the potential
negative effects of any awards outweigh the benefits. We believe the
Governor should be given the option of using the money as he or she
sees fit in support of the state's veteran population.
Finally, please consider asking enforcement agencies to put some
``teeth'' in the Federal Contractor requirements that mandate those
companies that contract with the government to list job openings with
their local employment service office. This very good requirement has
been on the books for a long time, but because of limited enforcement,
both Federal Contractors and Federal Contracting offices have failed to
follow the rules all of the time. We think that the veteran citizens of
Idaho should have easy access to these higher paying jobs and we
recommend that these regulations be more strictly enforced and
responsibility for the program be unified in a single agency in the
U.S. Department of Labor.
I commend the establishment of the ``President's business customer
ultimately determines who is to provide quality service to that
customer. It is National Hire Veterans Committee.'' We know that the
hired and we welcome support in our on-going efforts the mission of our
agency to assist business in solving employment and training related
challenges. The added influence of our Federal partner in marketing the
skills and experience of our veterans is most welcome.
We applaud and support the key aspects of the Jobs for Veterans Act
and believe it has helped to enhance the employment and training
services provided to veterans in Idaho. However, I believe with some
minor modifications in fiscal policy and allocation and enforcement
procedures, we will have a law that will provide exceptional, priority
service to the veterans that is worthy of the sacrifice they made to
defend our country and our way of life.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this Act. As I
stated previously, we at Idaho Commerce and Labor respect the
dedication and skills of our veterans and desire only to help build an
employment and training service that meets their needs with a minimum
of bureaucracy and a maximum of responsiveness and efficiency. Anything
less would not be worthy of their service.
______
Prepared Statement of Randy M. Miller, Chairman and CEO of ReadyMinds
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement
for the record regarding ``The Jobs for Veterans Act Three Years Later:
Are VETS Employment Programs Working for Veterans?'' Considering the
unacceptably high and steadily increasing rate of unemployment that
veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
are experiencing this hearing is both timely and important.
I am President and CEO of ReadyMinds--the nation's leading distance
career counseling organization. The services provided by ReadyMinds
Counselors enhance the way individuals select, prepare for and manage
their careers. The ReadyMinds solution incorporates comprehensive on-
line content and customized development tools with personalized
guidance and counseling provided by degreed certified professional
counselors who have met the rigorous standards established by the
National Board for Certified Counselors. Additionally, ReadyMinds has
been chosen to be the exclusive national training provider for those
counselors who wish to become knowledgeable in and receive national
credentials related to the best practices in distance counseling.
ReadyMinds has provided distance career counseling services to
students and alumni representing colleges and universities across the
country and to thousands of displaced workers transitioning from one
career to another. A portion of this displaced worker population that
ReadyMinds has provided services to include those individuals who were
adversely affected by the events of 9/11/01. ReadyMinds is also engaged
with the Department of Defense (DOD) providing distance career
counseling to military spouses.
DEFINING THE PROBLEM
The Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reported that the 2005 average monthly unemployment rate for 20-24 year
old veterans was 15.6 percent compared to 8.7 percent for 20-24 year
old non-veterans, and 4.0 percent for all veterans. This disparity in
the rate of unemployment for young, recently separated veterans is not
new. The Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance (Commission) reported in 1999 that 20-24 year old
veterans' unemployment was 10.6 percent compared to 3.4 percent for all
veterans.
Why is the unemployment rate for recently separated veterans so
much higher than their non-veteran peers and veterans in general? Some
will suggest that these young veterans are unemployed by choice. Others
will suggest that we don't know why and that the issue needs to be
studied. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the high unemployment of recently
separated veterans is so unacceptable as to compel immediate action and
that solutions can be found if we focus on what we do know and apply
proven remedies.
Regarding the suggestion that young veterans choose to be
unemployed doesn't hold up if one understands BLS's definition of
unemployed persons. ``All persons who had no employment during the
reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness,
and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-
week period ending with the reference week.'' (emphasis added) To
suggest that the BLS data does not represent the true employment status
of young veterans is to suggest that veterans, or members of their
household, deliberately misled Census Bureau surveyors.
Unfortunately, the realities of unemployment are only too real for
the 34,000 monthly average unemployed 20-24 year old veterans in 2005.
Regarding the suggestion that we don't know enough about recently
separated veterans and that the issue should be studied, I believe we
can draw on the earlier work done by the Commission. It reported that
of the veterans who used the DOL funded state labor exchange system
(One-Stops):
<bullet> ``Fewer than 25 percent were separated from the military
for less than 5 years'' suggesting that older veterans are their
primary client users.
<bullet> ``That 68 percent reported that they did not receive
career counseling. Of this group, 60 percent said they would like to
have received such counseling.''
<bullet> ``Seventy percent of the veterans did not receive
information on career preparation, and of those veterans, 70 percent
would like to have received such information.''
The conclusion that I draw from the Commission's earlier work is
that young recently separated veterans generally do not avail
themselves to the DOL funded One-Stop labor exchange services and, if
they did, one of the most important services essential for making
informed career choices--personalized career assessment and career
counseling by professionally trained counselors--is generally not
available.
I respectfully emphasize the above as it is this young veteran
group that is a population most in need of career assessment and
counseling.
characteristics of 21st century recently separated veterans
What are the characteristics that reflect today's separating
service members?
<bullet> According to the Defense Manpower and Data Center (DMDC)
of the 212,000 service men and women who separated from active duty in
fiscal year 2005:
<bullet> 96,000 (45 percent) were 20-24 years old.
<bullet> 94,000 (44 percent) were OIF/OEF veterans.
<bullet> 102,000 (48 percent) were married.
<bullet> The Washington Post reported on November 4, 2005, that 44
percent of military recruits come from rural areas.
<bullet> The majority of the veterans entered the military right
out of school and have no prior experience in searching for jobs in the
private sector labor market.
<bullet> Today's veterans are more computer literate than any prior
generation. Many carried their laptops, their handhelds and GPS
locators into battle.
<bullet> Almost all of the separating service members make both a
career transition as well as a geographic transition, relocating to
someplace other than their last duty station.
<bullet> More than 1.2 million service members have been deployed
to the ongoing conflicts OW and OEF. An increasing number of separating
service members are combat veterans--the first in a generation to be
engaged in sustained hostilities.
<bullet> For many, their combat experiences may make their
transition to civilian careers more difficult.
<bullet> Of the veterans who do not return to school, the majority
eventually may find suitable jobs/careers but it is through time-
consuming trial and error.
What services can be helpful to a veteran's career search?
Our extensive experience at ReadyMinds shows that people in career
transition have several basic ``needs''. The earlier these needs can be
addressed the greater the likelihood of a successful career transition.
Informing individuals that such services exist should always be the
initial step.
Basic career search needs include:
<bullet> An assessment of individual interests, skills and
strengths--a solid picture of where the service member stands and what
types of careers would be a good fit.
<bullet> Career related information--education/training/experience
prerequisites; job availability; career path opportunities.
<bullet> Translation of the service member's military skills,
training and experience into a civilian resume and into college credit
recommendations.
<bullet> Assistance with self-marketing--the networking and
interviewing process.
<bullet> Regular professional feedback during career/job search--a
reality check.
<bullet> Ongoing relationship, via online interaction, with a
dedicated, professional career counselor throughout the career planning
and employment process.
<bullet> Easy and convenient access to employers who want to hire
veterans--a virtual marketplace for veterans.
Does distance career counseling make a difference? Let me share
with you three ReadyMinds participants' answers in their own words.
``What was most helpful and effective about my session with my
counselor was the clarity and surety I felt afterwards about my career
path. She was able to take all the diverse strands of my search--which
often feel quite tangled to me and showed me where they're leading me.
It was good to have another voice from outside my usual support network
comment on the direction I'm going in my career change.''
``The counselor was able to offer specific/personalized suggestions
and provide advice and suggestions that I had not even considered
before, thus potentially opening many more doors.''
``My counselor was on the same `page' as I. There was a definite
synchronicity in the session. She was courteous, was not intimidating
and offered direct information. My counselor provided possibilities and
timely concrete suggestions that would have passed me. I feel as if my
world has opened up again.''
CHALLENGES
Veterans' employment and career transitional services are complex
issues and will not be solved with a silver bullet. I believe there are
two broad subject areas that must be addressed to ensure that veterans,
and particularly recently separated veterans, make a timely and
satisfying career transition from serving their country to a civilian
career.
One is mission systemic--how, where, by whom and under what
authority are labor market services offered to veterans. This is not my
area of expertise so I will leave it to others to offer suggestions for
improvement. We should note, however, looking back at one of the
Commission findings, if few recently separated veterans avail
themselves to the One-Stop menu of services that by design are passive
in nature and delivered at a fixed location during set hours, then
improving the delivery of these services may have little impact on the
unemployment plight of the young recently separated veteran. Active
outreach may be required either prior to separation at DOD transition
centers or after separation through DOL's unemployment insurance
system.
The second core issue is what services do the recently separated
veterans need/want and how can these services best be delivered.
Bearing in mind that this cohort of veterans is highly trained,
disciplined, motivated and often well educated I believe one of the
most important services that can be provided is timely, accurate and
personalized career information so that the individual veteran can make
a more informed career choice and conduct an efficient job search.
Simply engaging a young veteran, who is entering the civilian job
market for the first time as a professional, in job-placement activity
such as providing access to massive and often generic job posting
boards that identify jobs that happen to open today, prior to the
veteran making an informed career choice, will frequently be premature,
time consuming and counter-productive for the individual veterans.
The earlier professional career services become available,
preferably well in advance of separation, the more likely the veterans
will have greater opportunity to make informed decisions. This is
particularly true if the veteran is willing to ``return'' to someplace
other than his/her home of record if it leads to the most fulfilling
career. There is a distinct advantage to the recipient if there is
continuity in the service provider e.g. he/she works with the same
provider regardless of where they are separating from or where they are
returning to. Services should be convenient to the veteran.
The solution ReadyMinds has successfully pioneered is distance
counseling. Distance counseling is cost efficient--doesn't need
unnecessarily large infrastructure; convenient--24/7; scalable and
portable--same counselor can serve the veteran from beginning to end
regardless of where they live, the region in which they are searching
for a job or the location they are relocating to. One of the key
components of the ReadyMinds Program is the proper matching of the
needs of each participant with the expertise and experience of their
specifically assigned counselor, regardless of geographic location.
Additionally, technology has been developed and is in place allowing
for monitoring, reporting and integration between career services
provided and organizations or departments associated with the overall
service provided to each veteran. This results in a sophisticated
reporting platform identifying those individuals that do (and do not)
participate in the services provided and track eventual employment
related outcomes. This can ultimately aid in preventing individuals
from ``falling through the cracks.''
There are scores, if not thousands, of electronic job boards and
resume services available. A number of them even focus exclusively on
veterans. Sometimes too much of a good thing isn't necessarily good. An
individual veteran could easily be overwhelmed with so many places to
look for a job. One can assume that some career/job opportunities will
be missed or overlooked simply because of the sheer number of different
sites to explore. While job boards and resume services are not the
business of ReadyMinds, it does seem reasonable to conclude that if
there was one portal, one site that gathered the jobs into a single
place, noting those that come from self-described veteran-friendly
firms and allowed a single registration to have the veteran's resume
posted on multiple sites, the probability of successful outcomes would
be greatly enhanced.
While I stated earlier that I would refrain from discussing
systemic related issues, I can't help but note that DOL is charged with
the mission of employment and training services for veterans. The
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) on the other hand is mandated
under 38 U.S.C. 3697A to provide educational and vocational
counseling--a service that ReadyMinds believes would go a long way to
assisting separating veterans make more informed career decisions. How
is this career counseling service provided? How do service members/
veterans find out about the service? How accessible is the service to
the majority of separating veterans? It would be helpful to know the
answers to these questions in order to ensure that veterans aren't
inadvertently denied every opportunity for a successful transition to
civilian careers.
SOLUTION OPTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As I stated above, I don't believe there is a silver bullet that
can solve all the issues relating to improving delivery of employment
related services to veterans. Following are some specific options and
suggested constructive solutions that I urge the Committee to consider.
(1) Fund a pilot to evaluate the value added of offering
personalized distance career assessment, counseling and self-marketing
strategies. Because of the unique nature of transitioning service
members/veterans being geographically dispersed prior to separation and
even further dispersed post separation this pilot could focus on
service members separating from particular sites and/or returning to
specific regions e.g. north-western states.
In this pilot the effectiveness of offering distance counseling to
veterans who return to rural communities (approximately 44 percent) and
are not easily accessible to traditional employment related services
provided in One-Stop centers should also be evaluated. The outcomes of
this new pilot could then result in the establishment of new, overall
performance standards regarding the servicing of the entire veteran
population.
(2) Train VA counselors who currently provide educational and
vocational counseling in best practices of ``distance counseling''
techniques so that their services are consistent, convenient and user-
friendly for the veterans and so that an individual counselor can
provide continuity of service to veterans as they relocate at and after
separation.
(3) Establish an ``identify and refer'' protocol at VA medical
centers, VET Centers and regional offices to identify recently
separated veterans who come to these facilities for other services and
inform them of the career transition and distance/online career
counseling services that are available.
DOL could identify and fund an entity to create a dedicated portal
through which veterans could easily access a substantial portion of job
listings from both public e.g. America's Job Bank (AJB), and large
private job boards. Such a site could also be used by national trade
associations to inform veterans about careers in their industry sector.
In the same way, create a single resume site for separating veterans
making it easier for employers to find the veterans.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on
an issue that is so critical to both our country and the individual
veterans who have served us so well. Having paid close attention to the
transitional needs of separating veterans and their spouses and having
interacted with DOL, VA and DOD over the last four and one-half years,
I know you agree with me that America owes her young veterans a
successful transition into civilian careers. It's good for the
veterans, good for business and good for America's future.
ReadyMinds stands ready to work with committee staff and
representatives from DOL, VA and DOD to design and implement specific
strategies that address the unique needs of the young separating
veterans of the 21st Century.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7354.074
Fiscal Year 2005 DVOP and LVER Actual FTE Utilization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FTE
DVOP FTE DVOP Non- LVER FTE LVER Non- Total Non-
State (Includes Veteran (Includes Veteran (Includes Veteran
Non-Vet) FTE Non-Vet) FTE Non-Vet) FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Region:
CT.......................................... 8 0 8 0 16 0
ME.......................................... 5.5 0 4 1 9.5 1
MA.......................................... 21 0 17 1 38 1
NH.......................................... 5 0 5 0 10 0
RI.......................................... 2.5 0 3 0 5.5 0
NJ.......................................... 33.5 0 16.5 0 50 0
NY.......................................... 52.5 0 48 0.5 100.5 0.5
PR.......................................... 5 0 6 1 11 1
VT.......................................... 2 0 3.5 0 5.5 0
VI.......................................... 0 0 1 0 1 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 135 0 112 3.5 247 3.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Region:
DE.......................................... 5 0 3 0 8 0
DC.......................................... 3 0 2 0 5 0
MD.......................................... 23 0 18 0 41 0
PA.......................................... 37.5 0 44 0 81.5 0
VA.......................................... 32 0 32 0.5 64 0.5
WV.......................................... 11 0 6 0 17 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 111.5 0 105 0.5 216.5 0.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Region:
AL.......................................... 16.5 0 21 2.5 37.5 2.5
FL.......................................... 81.5 0 57 0 138.5 0
GA.......................................... 43 0 31 0 74 0
KY.......................................... 21 0 13 0.5 34 0.5
MS.......................................... 13 0 19 0 32 0
NC.......................................... 24 0 69 0 93 0
SC.......................................... 22 0 25.5 0.5 47.5 0.5
TN.......................................... 30 0 32 0 62 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 251 0 267.5 3.5 518.5 3.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Region:
IL.......................................... 37.5 0 34.5 0 72 0
IN.......................................... 31 0 34 0 65 0
IA.......................................... 15 0 3 0 18 0
KS.......................................... 18.5 0 12 0 30.5 0
MI.......................................... 29 0 36 2 65 2
MN.......................................... 21 0 14 0 35 0
MO.......................................... 22 0 31.5 0 53.5 0
NE.......................................... 5 0 10.5 0 15.5 0
OH.......................................... 64 0 24.5 0 88.5 0
WI.......................................... 20.5 0 17 1 37.5 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 263.5 0 217 3 480.5 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Region:
AR.......................................... 11 0 14 0 25 0
CO.......................................... 22 0 14 1 36 1
LA.......................................... 20 0 20 0 40 0
MT.......................................... 8.5 0 1 0 9.5 0
NM.......................................... 8 0 11 0 19 0
ND.......................................... 2 0 6 0 8 0
OK.......................................... 17 0 25.5 0 42.5 0
SD.......................................... 7 0 1.5 0 8.5 0
TX.......................................... 100 0 103.5 0 203.5 0
UT.......................................... 9 0 9.5 0 18.5 0
WY.......................................... 5 0 1.5 0 6.5 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 209.5 0 207.5 1 417 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Region:
AK.......................................... 4.5 0 3.5 0 8 0
AZ.......................................... 3.9 0 19 0 58 0
CA.......................................... 142.5 6.5 67.5 3 210 9.5
HI.......................................... 5 0 6 0 11 0
ID.......................................... 5.5 0 10 0 15.5 0
NV.......................................... 8 0 7.5 0 15.5 0
OR.......................................... 19 0 18.5 0 37.5 0
WA.......................................... 36 0 24 0 60 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 259.5 6.5 156 3 415.5 9.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Total............................ 1230 6.5 1065 14.5 2295 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<all>