COOPERATION BETWEEN THE VA'S
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COUNSELING SERVICE AND LABOR'S VETERANS EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
SERVICE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 340, Cannon
House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Cooley, Hutchinson, Waters, and Mascara.
Also present: Representative Ney.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUYER
STATEMENT OF RONALD W. DRACH, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, DISABLED VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF BILL CRANDELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF TERRY GRANDISON, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF HON. MAXINE WATERS
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MASCARA
STATEMENT OF GEN. PRESTON TAYLOR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
STATEMENT OF TOM PIFER, DISABLED VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM SPECIALIST, ST. PETERSBURG, FL
STATEMENT OF ALLAN PERKINS, DISABLED VETERANS OUTREACH PROGRAM SPECIALIST, HOUSTON, TX
STATEMENT OF R. JOHN VOGEL, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUYER
Mr. Buyer. In keeping with the long standing traditions of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, we are going to start meetings on time. It is the military in all of
us.
This subcommittee hearing on Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling
Services and the cooperation between the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling and
the Veterans Employment and Training Service will now come to order.
I know some of you have traveled some distance in order to be a part of
this hearing, and up front I want to thank you very much for your travels to be here. Your
field expertise is a key to the improvements of the rehabilitative process and for our
service-connected disabled veterans.
Before we go much further, I would like to mention that many of you
appearing before us here today either represent or are colleagues of employees injured in
Oklahoma City. On behalf of this subcommittee, I would like to offer our thoughts and
prayers to the VR&C personnel of Oklahoma City--Diane Dooley, Dennis Jackson, and Jim
Guthrie; voc rehab specialists in Oklahoma City that were injured in the bombing as well
as the State DVOP, Stan Rombaum, and to all other VA employees and their families affected
by the bombing.
We will move this hearing expeditiously, and hopefully we will conclude
within 2 hours. I also serve on the Judiciary Committee on the Subcommittee on Crime, and
we are holding hearings on domestic terror this morning, so we are going to conclude this
and allow me to participate in that hearing.
We are meeting this morning to discuss the effectiveness of the
cooperation of the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Service and the Labor's
Veterans Employment and Training Service. Under chapter 31, Title 38, it is the mission of
the VR&C to rehabilitate disabled veterans to become employable, to obtain and
maintain suitable employment, and to achieve maximum independence in the conduct of their
everyday living situations.
It is also the job of VETS to see that the graduates of VR&C
programs are then placed in suitable positions allowing them to continue serving their
country by becoming productive citizens. It is, and should continue to be, a centerpiece
of both the VA and the Department of Labor to effectively administer this program to the
benefit of the veteran. There can be no greater calling than to effectively reach and
assist these veterans.
Congress places a high priority on the programs and services for those
who became disabled in the course of service to their country. I place as a high priority
an effective program that maximizes employment and independent living opportunities for
these special veterans. America has long recognized a special sense of responsibility for
disabled veterans, beginning with the veterans of World War I when the War at Risk
Insurance Act was instituted. Similar programs were developed for the veterans of World
War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Peacetime and Gulf War veterans have similar access to
rehabilitative programs.
But let me again emphasize, that it is not enough just to say that these
programs are in place. There must be a consistent oversight and improvement for this
program to be in the best interests of veterans. This subcommittee will not allow any
deterioration of the services necessary for our service-connected disabled veterans. This
subcommittee will not be deterred from encouraging changes in long-standing procedures if
such changes are for the veterans' benefit. In the end, the ultimate measure of success
must be answered by the question, what is in the best interests of the veteran.
We all acknowledge that the responsibilities for most VR&C and the
VETS have increased almost exponentially over the past years. We are aware, as well, that
serious budget considerations have also impacted negatively on the delivery of services.
Today, however, we will hear from certain veteran employment specialists who have overcome
some of the impediments to deliver services in high numbers and with quality for vets. We
hope to learn from their successes, so that we might ensure better services across the
rest of the country.
The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, I have no interest in protecting
present systems if they do not work effectively. That is the bottom line. The subcommittee
is open to innovative suggestions from all quarters, knowing that all share the same
bottom line, the goal of attainment and the maintenance of suitable employment of our
service disabled.
Vitality and enthusiasm are key elements in the service quality and are
the by-products of innovations. It is time that we see how innovation and enthusiasm can
be used to improve the opportunities for disabled veterans.
Before we continue, I'll ask whether or not the ranking member has a
statement that she would submit for the record, so I'll make sure that that is placed in
the record now, and I think the ranking member should be here in the next 25 minutes, and
I'll recognize her at the appropriate time.
[The statement of Congresswoman Waters appears at p. 42.]
[The statement of Congressman Schaefer appears at p. 41.]
Mr. Buyer. Our first panel of witnesses are representatives of the
veterans' organizations, and I ask that our friends from the VSO's limit their oral
testimony to 5 minutes. Your written statements will be included in their entirety in the
hearing record. I'm always pleased to hear from the veterans groups as they are able to
bring to the table a quality of experience and expertise that I'm sure will be brought to
bear during the course of this hearing.
Our first witness is Mr. Ron Drach, the national employment director for
the Disabled American Veterans.
STATEMENTS OF RONALD W. DRACH, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, DISABLED
VETERANS OF AMERICA; BILL CRANDELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, VIETNAM VETERANS OF
AMERICA; TERRY GRANDISON, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA;
AND PHILIP WILKERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Drach. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today and commend you for holding these hearings today.
Mr. Chairman, since World War II and for about 40 years following World
War II the Vocational Rehabilitation Program had as its goal the restoration of
employment, which basically loosely interpreted meant that once the training was completed
the case was closed. In 1980 Public Law 96-466 was enacted which changed that goal
legislatively to the actual attainment of employment rather than just the completion of
training.
These hearings today are very timely, Mr. Chairman, and I say that in
the context of, while the program I think generally has worked very well, there is
definitely room for improvement. I am a product of that program. I graduated through our
DAV National Service Officer Program under chapter 31, vocational rehabilitation. But if
H.R. 511, which is pending right now, would be enacted as in its present form, we won't
have to worry about oversight on vocational rehabilitation any more because there won't be
any vocational rehabilitation.
H.R. 511 would repeal chapters 30, 31, 35 and 32 of Title 38, U.S. Code,
including voc rehab and the Montgomery GI bill, and DAV is unalterably opposed to the
repeal of those programs. Those programs would be replaced by block grants, and history
tells us that veterans are not served by block grants, Mr. Chairman, they never have been,
and I go back to the 1970's under CETA and some other programs. Veterans just will not be
served, they never have been, and we don't think they will be.
I think the problems that voc rehab confronts are not as simplistic as
they may seem on the surface as it relates to better cooperation between the Department of
Labor and VA. Certainly better cooperation is necessary and meaningful and should be
pursued, but there are some other things that impact on this also. One is the
qualification standards for voc rehab specialists and counseling psychologists. The VA
VR&C Service has been working for a number of years to bring those standards into the
real world.
Currently a vocational rehabilitation specialist need only have a
bachelor's degree in any discipline or have 3 years of experience that provides general
knowledge of training practices, techniques, and work requirements. Mr. Chairman, I don't
mean to pick on any particular degree program, but under this current policy a person with
a degree, a bachelor's degree in classical music, is qualified to be a vocational
rehabilitation specialist. We think that is wrong.
The standards have been updated and were approved last year, in 1994, by
the assistant secretary of human resources and administration, and they still have not
been put into place yet. According to the Under Secretary for Benefits in a letter to me,
the issue is, quote, in process of discussing implementation procedures, unquote, with the
union.
(See p. 56.)
Mr. Chairman, the independent budget which was put together by several
veterans' service organizations, including the DAV, makes some recommendations. One is to
add 600 FTE to the Voc Rehab Service because there just are not enough employees to handle
the case load. We also--the IIB also recommends increasing the cap on contract counseling
services, adequate funding for revolving fund loans, and authorize unpaid work experience
in the private sector.
Mr. Chairman, the work loads continue to increase, and I think we need
to look at voc rehab not as a cost but as an investment. Some surveys, including one done
by the VA, show that in pre-rehab income, their average income prior to going into voc
rehab was $3,850. Post-rehab showed an average income of$19,462, a significant increase
I'm sure you would agree, additionally, it was estimated that $3.7 million was paid into
Social Security taxes by these individuals and another $13 million was paid into State and
Federal income tax programs. The Voc Rehab Program pays for itself; there is no question
in our mind about that.
We want to make a couple of recommendations. One, we believe that there
needs to be a closer working relationship with VA voc rehab and State voc rehab. Right now
it is very possible for a disabled veteran who is not eligible for VA voc rehab to be
referred to a State voc rehab but no follow-up is done. Concurrently, or additionally, a
person could go to State voc rehab as a veteran and be enrolled in a State voc rehab
program, but they don't track him or her as a veteran so we don't know what kind of
service is being done.
I think VA needs to tell its story a little bit more. A lot of employers
are not aware, as are a lot of veterans not aware, of the services and equipment that can
be provided to a disabled veteran in a voc rehab program. Also, if a veteran has completed
training and is employed and because of changing technology that individual potentially
may lose his or her job, the VA can provide additional training so that that individual
may retain that job.
We think that VA needs to communicate to employers of these services and
programs that are available. We also believe that the VA should relook at the old career
development centers that they piloted in the early 1980's that were very effective. We
also think that they should hook up with a job service. Many job services are now
operating job clubs, and that should be integrated into the career development center.
Unpaid work experience; I elaborate a little bit in my prepared
testimony on that. It is a good program, hard to market, but it has some good outcomes.
Some other discussions came up. We were in Albuquerque, NM, 2 weeks ago
with the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, and we talked to
some employers, and the employers said that when it comes to entry-level jobs they have no
problem getting referrals of qualified applicants from the job service but when it comes
to getting the high-tech jobs or the more high paid jobs they don't get quality
applicants, and I think there is an inherent problem with the job service in that most of
their jobs, I think the average job is about $6 an hour. Voc rehab clients aren't looking
for the $6 an hour entry-level jobs, they are graduates of college for the most part, they
are looking for higher level jobs.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude and be happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Drach, with attachments, appears at p. 48.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Crandell.
Mr. Crandell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the
subcommittee. Vietnam Veterans of America appreciates this opportunity.
The point of VA's Vocational Rehabilitation Program is helping disabled
vets train for and obtain jobs, but voc rehab provides a great deal more physical therapy
than vocational rehabilitation. Employment services are generally not emphasized or even
discussed until near the end of training. This is not even good therapy. A realistic hope
of employment is for many veterans essential to their physical and mental healing.
The best employment agency available to disabled veterans is the
successful organization that taxpayers are already paying for and, we feel, getting their
money's worth. The Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service, VETS,
funds and oversees a network of employment specialists dedicated to veterans. Its Disabled
Veterans Outreach Program specialists, DVOPs, and Local Veteran Employment
Representatives, LVERs, are available to veterans in voc rehab, but there is little
cooperation.
We are encouraged by the recent cooperative efforts of both agencies to
come up with a structure that works. It must go beyond agreement in Washington. DVOPs
should be outstationed in VA facilities in both Vocational Rehabilitation Programs and VET
centers. VA and DOL must split the costs. The actual costs are small. A VETS specialist at
a VA facility needs a computer and linkage to be effective. Currently VA refuses to pay
for computers at VET centers for DOL staff and DOL will not pay for a computer to be used
at a VA facility.
The cooperation we call for already exists where a few VA and DOL people
have taken the initiative at the State or local level. During the past year, for example,
a DVOP stationed at a VA Vet Center in Albany, NY, using a computer and linkage to stay
connected to the whole job service became part of the treatment team.
Because employment is essential in the treatment of service connected
psychological conditions, many disabled veterans go to vet centers for counseling, a need
that frequently accompanies serious service-connected disability. The Albany DVOP
routinely connected such veterans with voc rehab and worked with them throughout their
progress. Although he was located at neither a voc rehab office nor his own Job Service
Office, he got 220 secured placements for disabled veterans in 1994, a very high figure.
Because of his involvement from start to finish, veterans stayed in the program and
completed it. Other State programs are experimenting with such cooperation. There are many
workable models. Congress has given them all the authority needed. It simply needs
enforcement.
We assume that members of this subcommittee are aware that legislation
pending before Congress intended to consolidate programs and eliminate duplication would
abolish these efforts. Some bills would repeal laws that support veterans employment
programs. H.R. 1120 would eliminate a long list of statutes, funding streams, and programs
including VA voc rehab and DOL's DVOPs and LVERs as well as long standing laws that make
priority hiring programs for veterans possible. H.R. 511, as Ron Drach has said, would go
a step further and strip DOL of the expertise, monitoring, and institutional memory that
VETS provides. Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Montgomery have rightly sounded the alarm
on such legislation. We call upon you to protect the veterans employment program from such
hasty measures.
Mr. Chairman, our disabled veterans have given more to this Nation than
most living Americans, and the sacrifices of the seriously disabled are the greatest. All
of us want disabled veterans to live productive lives. Make voc rehab work with VA's own
vet centers and with VETS. These programs were made for each other.
Vietnam Veterans of America will be glad to help Congress and both
agencies make the connection, and they can succeed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandell appears at p. 65.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Crandell.
Mr. Grandison.
Mr. Grandison. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, it is an honor to
participate in today's hearing. PVA appreciates this opportunity to express our views on
the Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
PVA believes the existence of a viable Vocational Rehabilitation Program
is one of the most important benefits available to veterans. VR&C provides
service-connected disabled veterans and service members services and assistance they need
to achieve maximum independence in daily living. This program also assists these
individuals in acquiring skills and helps them to obtain and maintain suitable employment
to the maximum extent possible. VR&C's services are crucial to transitioning disabled
veterans back into mainstream society.
PVA's foremost concern rests with VR&C's ability to provide timely
and comprehensive services to catastrophically disabled veterans. The primary goal of
rehabilitation is to prepare disabled veterans to become productive members of society by
helping them regain the ability to compete for gainful employment.
Veterans who sustain injuries that impair major bodily functions, like
spinal cord dysfunction, require comprehensive clinical and rehabilitative care to return
them to their homes. That care which is provided in the hospital setting does not always
prepare disabled veterans for immediate transition back in the work force. Many
catastrophically disabled veterans require training, equipment, counseling, and
accommodation to reenter the job market.
One of the most frequent complaints of severely disabled veterans is the
current inadequacy of employment opportunities. PVA believes a major impediment to
severely disabled veterans finding suitable employment in a timely fashion is the
VR&C's high work loads. VR&C's excessive work loads effectively discourage
disabled veterans from attaining the highest levels of rehabilitation.
High case loads and inordinate waiting times make it impossible for
vocational rehabilitation specialists to provide the minimum level of vocational
rehabilitation services necessary to disabled veterans. Moreover, future projections for
vocational rehabilitation services are not good. The VA predicts a continuing decline in
VR&C's ability to provide timely vocational rehabilitation services to
service-connected disabled veterans and separating service members. Mr. Chairman, it is
incumbent upon Congress to provide the necessary resources to stop this trend.
PVA's overview of the VR&C and VETS program reveal disparate levels
of cooperation between the two programs. For instance, there are some areas in the country
where VR&C and VETS activities are coordinated and complementary. This usually occurs
where VETS personnel utilize office space that is in close proximity to VR&C
personnel. The proximity of personnel accommodates interprogram communication and results
in a higher level of services for veterans. Conversely, in areas where there is geographic
detachment, coordinated communications and services are sporadic at best.
Nevertheless, PVA is optimistic about VR&C and VET's potential for
delivering coordinated quality services to veterans. In order for these programs to
operate in a harmonious way, PVA recommends VR&C and VETS be part of a
multidisciplinary team concept. This teamwork will ensure that disabled veterans receive
the full continuum of rehabilitative services in a holistic fashion. In addition, a team
concept will provide information needed to monitor and measure the quality and efficiency
of both programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to
any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grandison appears at p. 60.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Grandison.
Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Wilkerson. Thank you very much.
Members of the subcommittee, the American Legion appreciates this
opportunity to appear this morning, and we wish to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this very timely hearing on an important program of benefits and assistance for
service-connected veterans.
The VA Voc Rehab Program provides to service-disabled veterans a wide
range of services intended to help them overcome an employment handicap and find suitable
employment. If found eligible, an individualized program of education or training is
developed, and while in the program a monthly subsistence allowance is paid. This has been
the traditional strength of VA's Voc Rehab Program, with most efforts directed towards
training or education rather than on actual employment.
In recent years disabled veterans seeking entrance into the program,
those in various phases of training, and those who have completed their program of
education or training and needing help in finding employment are having to wait longer and
longer for assistance from the voc rehab staff.
Mr. Chairman, the demand for voc rehab counseling, including employment
counseling, education, and training, and employment assistance, has risen dramatically
with the continued downsizing of the armed forces. Veterans are also more informed about
their VA benefits as a result of the TAP and DTAP Programs.
We are also aware of the fact that in a recent decision by the Court of
Veterans Appeals in Davenport v. Brown more veterans may now be seeking vocational
rehabilitation assistance as a result of the elimination of the requirement that the
service-connected disability cause a veteran's employment handicap. However, despite the
growth in demand, a high dropout rate, and increasing delays in providing needed services,
staffing for the VR&C services have been repeatedly cut. These problems, in our view,
stem largely from trying to do too much with too little, and in fact the program's
procedures have not kept up with changes in the field of employment communications and
really the fundamental needs of disabled veterans in finding suitable employment.
The VR&C Service has recently developed a broad plan to streamline,
modernize, and basically improve the way the Voc Rehab Program operates. Efforts will also
focus on determining why so many veterans drop out before completing their program. This
is to be achieved through the use of both VA expertise and outside consultants to redesign
existing business procedures and management practices. We believe it is important that a
consulting firm be selected as soon as possible. We also believe that it will be important
that in this process the veterans' service organizations have the opportunity to provide
their valuable input as the various changes to the program are considered and developed.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the VA's relationship with the Department
of Labor's VETS Service, it has become increasingly clear that both agencies require an
improvement in their communications and cooperations between the respective staffs at the
national and local levels. We understand that efforts are, in fact, under way to establish
a better working relationship and to make the respective programs more effective in
serving disabled veterans. VA has set a goal of doubling the number of rehabilitated
veterans from 5,000 to 10,000 over the next 2 years. The term "rehabilitated" as
described appears to be synonymous with having them in suitable employment.
To achieve this goal, progress must continue towards improving the level
of timeliness and effectiveness of the service provided to disabled veterans by the
VR&C Service. This includes the utilization to the maximum extent possible of the
resources of the Department of Labor, other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
and the private sector.
We believe the administrative and procedural changes VA has outlined can
greatly improve the Voc Rehab Program. However, we continue to believe these efforts must
be accompanied by additional personnel in the VR&C Service.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkerson appears at p. 70.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Wilkerson.
Before we move to questions, I would like to recognize the ranking
member of this committee, and I also note that I noticed in the paper where she is one of
the first recipients of the Archbishop Desmond Tutu Award for her advocacy of human
rights, so I congratulate you for that award, and you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAXINE WATERS
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome our panel here this morning. As a matter of
fact, all of those in attendance.
This is a very important hearing, and, Mr. Chairman, I think that you
are to be commended for holding this hearing. It is without question important for us to
understand that vocational rehabilitation is in jeopardy with the bills that have been
identified here this morning, and the first thing that I think we must do is commit to
maintaining vocational rehabilitation services and opposing any legislation that would
eliminate these services. The only question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, is how do we improve
these services, how do we make them available to even more veterans.
Everything that I have heard here this morning leads me to believe that
there is no one in the veterans' service organizations who believes the program should be
eliminated but, rather, who believe the programs should be improved. We need more
discussion on how to do this.
I have had extensive discussions with the staff here about what happens
from the time a veteran gets into the program, the kind of rehabilitation to make them job
ready, and whether or not they are then job connected once they are job ready.
When we talk about this coordinated team approach, we really do need to
understand whether or not this bifurcated service is the way it should be. Perhaps it
should be all in one shop so that there is a total assessment and the training is done, so
that there is an understanding about what jobs are available, what the strengths and the
talents are of the individual that we are assessing, and whether or not we could connect
those talents with the jobs that are available in the market today and the new kinds of
jobs.
So I suppose I'm interested, Mr. Chairman, in hearing more about whether
or not we should have a consultant service to really take a comprehensive look at how we
provide these services, with your input, how can we do a better job of making sure that
this job-ready disabled veteran is now ready for a real job out there, and whether or not
we should not be trying to provide the services in the way that we are doing, and whether
or not there should be a whole new way of doing this.
So, Mr. Chairman, this really does give us the opportunity to take a
look at what we are doing. We all want what is best for the disabled veteran, and today I
think we can learn a lot about what we can do to advance the cause of rehabilitation and
disabled veterans.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you, ma'am.
It goes back to a classic scenario whereby those of us who share and
understand the dimension--and you have the expertise--if we don't take care of our own
systems, others who don't share the dimension feel it necessary to step in and clean
house. That is what we are faced with here, and so we not only have to clean it up and
make it work effectively in the coordination and team concepts and talking about moving,
and if it is talking about moving systems around, then we may have to do that.
One thing as I begin here as a new chairman of this subcommittee, it has
always been bothersome to me when I observe some of my colleagues when they assume a chair
participate in the pontification of the chair, so I'm going to try not to do that, and I
will refer back to Maxine if she would like to ask any questions and I will ask questions
at the end. We will assume the 5-minute rule and proceed in that manner.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, and since I've kind of wrapped up my
thoughts about it I simply would like to know if there have been any recommendations from
the GAO or anybody else that you embrace that will make rehabilitation services for
veterans better, or if you have any recommendations, concrete recommendations, such as the
one I heard by Mr. Wilkerson for consultant services to do this.
Mr. Drach. Yes, ma'am, I would like to respond to that. The GAO did a
study in 1992 which kind of was the springboard for an oversight hearing in May of 1993,
almost 3 years ago to the day today, and in that report--and I have it here but just going
from memory--there were many recommendations that GAO made that DAV certainly embraces and
supports, and in that hearing we said that as well as made some additional
recommendations.
In today's testimony our prepared document has several recommendations
which I talked a little bit about, and they are too detailed to go into right now, but I
would be happy to talk to you at some other point.
But we have made many recommendations. Some don't cost anything, some do
cost some money.
Mr. Crandell. Yes, I think we have had some pretty good recommendations
made. I wouldn't have a problem with outside consultants taking a look, I think. Almost
anything we do could stand the scrutiny of people from Mars asking why we operate the way
we operate, who have no real investment in the system.
The thing that is most important to us at this point is getting a
serious level of cooperation between the Department of Labor and voc rehab. We think that
is doable because we have the organizations to do it and we have the experience to do it.
Ms. Waters. Should these services continue to be rendered by two
separate departments?
Mr. Crandell. We think so, and I'll tell you why. A couple of reasons.
One is, if you were to transfer, for example, VETS over to the VA, one thing that concerns
us greatly in that kind of scenario is that whenever it becomes necessary to cut FTE at VA
it never comes out of the health services, it comes out of the other services. That is why
Voc Rehab is down to about 30 percent of the staffing that it had in 1980. We would be
afraid of losing those sameemployment specialists. The reason that we need cooperation
between Labor and Voc Rehab is because VA isn't able to do that job.
Mr. Grandison. PVA agrees with my colleague's initial comments with the
exception of the two programs working in a bifurcated system. We would not object to both
programs being housed under one umbrella, but the programs must be given high priority
within VA. It doesn't matter where you house the programs, but if the programs are not
given the priority and the resources they need to effectively train and rehabilitate
veterans and get them into the private sector as well as the public sector employment, it
is not doing anybody any good. We want to see a high performing Vocational Rehabilitation
Program.
Mr. Wilkerson. The American Legion has a slightly different position,
that we would be opposed to any efforts to merge these two services. We feel they each
have their own very separate mission. Particularly the VETS program is not exclusively for
disabled veterans. It has that responsibility as well as trying to provide employment
assistance to all other veterans.
We feel, however, that there is a definite need for closer cooperation,
communication, that sort of planning, and I guess really a closer working relationship
without concern for turf or that sort of thing, and recognizing that it is a complex thing
dealing with two separate agencies, and the lack of resources in particular on the VA side
in the Voc Rehab Service, I think that has just been a critical problem and one that
certainly undermines a lot of the efforts that are currently under way, and we are much
troubled by the fact that the efforts to change the program are absolutely essential but
the success of these efforts, as well intentioned as they may be, the outcome is somewhat
in jeopardy, I think.
Mr. Drach. Could I just respond real quick? DAV has long had a
resolution supporting the transfer of VETS to the VA, but it is not quite that simple, it
is very complicated, and we have draft legislation that we wrote about 5 or 6 years ago we
would be happy to share with you.
But it is going to take more than just a transfer, it is going to take a
major reorganization within the VA, and first and foremost the incumbent assistant
secretary of VETS under our proposal would go over to the VA as a new deputy--the same
title that Mr. Vogel has, under secretary. Under our proposal the new person would be
under secretary for veterans employment, training, and education.
Ms. Waters. Interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. You are welcome.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, the chairman of the
Hospitals Subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON
Mr. Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you and
congratulate you on calling this hearing and on your chairmanship. I just have a couple of
questions for Mr. Drach.
In your testimony--and I came in a little bit late but I have been perusing your written testimony that you presented--one of your concerns regards H.R. 511, which I think is called the Work Force Preparation and Development Act. I have also a letter from you, an April 13 letter, expressing some of your concerns about that, and you included a position paper of the Disabled American Veterans, and in the position paper that your organization has taken, you state that there is a consensus that is building in Congress and in the administration regarding job training programs and that part of that consensus is that there is a need to consolidate employment and training categorical programs, and of course that is the goal of this bill that has been introduced H.R. 511.
I think we have something over 150 different job training programs on
the Federal level, a great deal of duplication, overlap, varying degrees of success, some
better than others. So as your organization I think rightly says, there is a growing
consensus that we need to try to consolidate and to try to bring some order out of the
chaos in these job training programs.
In the letter that you sent me--I want you to tell me whether I have
understood correctly--it seems like your concerns are twofold: Number one, that the
veterans priority and emphasis in services would be repealed, so that that is a very
legitimate concern; and that, secondly, some of the job training and rehab programs
especially designed, designated, for veterans and that have historically been there for
veterans would be caught up in this consolidation. Is that an accurate reflection of your
concern?
Mr. Drach. Yes, sir. The first part, the priority of services, currently
come under chapter 41 of Title 38, U.S. Code, which would be repealed by H.R. 511, and I
think one of the misunderstandings, at least as I see it, with the consolidation and the
repeal of chapter 41 is that chapter 41 is not an employment and training program, it is a
delivery system, it is the LVERs and the DVOPs, and it is the oversight by that system by
an assistant secretary of labor, so it is not on employment program, per se.
Veterans do not have an employment and training program other than voc
rehab and the GI bill type programs. Within the Department of Labor there is no targeted
program for veterans, and as I mentioned in my oral testimony earlier, veterans don't get
served.
I have been in this town since 1972. Veterans did not get served in
theComprehensive Employment and Training Act to any great numbers. Veterans do not get
served today in the Job Training Partnership Act in great numbers. Unless veterans are
targeted--and even when President Carter targeted veterans in 1978 under CETA we did not
get served to the degree that the President wanted us to get served.
In the repeal of some of these other programs, if you put voc rehab or
chapter 35 for widows and dependent children into block grants, you could very possibly
have--and I'll pick on California--California could possibly say we are going to give a
disabled veteran $400 a month and 5 years of training; Kentucky, by contrast, might say we
are going to give that disabled veteran $100 a month and 12 months training. So you are
going to have disparity in benefits for those eligible based on State priorities.
Mr. Hutchinson. Let me ask you this. I think you have got a very valid
point that you get into job training, placement, and rehab, that veterans are in a
category by themselves and it is truly a Federal, national mission and commitment.
If we were able in this bill to pull out the veterans, really exempt
them from what we are doing in consolidating the other job training programs because I
think you acknowledge there are 150 some programs, but if we could pull the veterans
portion out and if we could maintain the veterans preference, would that pretty much
alleviate your concerns about the direction that bill is going and what we are trying to
do?
Mr. Drach. I'm going to try to answer that very carefully.
Mr. Hutchinson. I tried to ask it very carefully.
Mr. Drach. If you say pull it out, you mean delete the language that is
in H.R. 511 that would repeal chapters 30, 31, 32, 35 and 41, that would make me feel a
lot better, yes, number one.
Number two, I think that in any block grant or any future system,
whether it is employment and training or whether it is delivery, we need to maintain the
priority of services for veterans. We are the only population in this country that is a
product of the Federal Government. The Federal Government made us what we are. The States
didn't, the local employment service office didn't. So we need, in our opinion, to have a
Federal mandate that veterans will continue to be provided the top level of services.
Mr. Hutchinson. And I agree with that, and I look forward--I serve on
the Opportunities Committee, and I look forward to working with you and the other VSO's in
trying to make that language in that bill acceptable, so we look forward to working on
that with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Drach. I appreciate that.
Mr. Buyer. The chair now recognizes Mr. Mascara of Pennsylvania.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MASCARA
Mr. Mascara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this
meeting.
While I'm new on the Veterans' Committee, I was a county commissioner
for 15 years in Washington County, Pennsylvania, and I had the responsibility of running
Federal training programs dating back to Manpower, and I heard you mention CETA. In fact,
I came to Washington, DC, to give testimony, and I believe Vice President Quayle was a
Senator at the time, and had proposed JTPA. I just want to remind everybody, with that
information I realized, one, that before I came to Washington, DC, to give testimony about
the proposed JTPA program, that the funding we were receiving was able to train 15 percent
of the people that we really needed to train. After CETA and JTPA they only gave us money
to train 7 percent of the people who really needed to be trained, and having been a county
commissioner I was victimized by block grants in the 1980's when they didn't send enough
money to run the programs. Then the buck was passed to me to tell the people that we
didn't have the money to offer the programs, and I see in your testimony, Mr. Drach, that
you have some concerns about pending legislation that establishes block grants to the
States. You said it before I said it, and I was going to say the obligation is not for the
States.
I mean people went to war and served this country as a result of a
national problem. So I would oppose block grants to administer these programs, and I would
like to hear from you. Do you share those views? You keep shaking your head. Apparently
you do. Would you like to talk a little more about block grants?
Mr. Drach. Yes. I got in trouble at a hearing on March 23 before Mr.
McKeon's subcommittee when I opposed block grants. He didn't take kindly to that.
I appreciate your experiences, and we knew about some of those
experiences even from here in Washington because we had contact with a lot of towns and a
lot of cities about the implementation and the delivery of services through CETA.
I don't know that block grants in and of themselves are necessarily
inherently bad, but I think as it relates to veterans--and I think your experience bears
this out--that if you don't get enough to serve the people that need to be served and you
leave it up to the local jurisdictions to determine who is going to be served, you run
into some problems.
Number one, the constituents that may most need to be served may not
have the voice at the local level to be heard effectively and adequately. Many groups just
don't have effective lobbying efforts. In spite of, I think, the perception that veterans
are a very strong lobbying group, when it came to CETA and JTPA, number one, Mr. Quayle,
when he was chairman of the committee when we testified on JTPA, on the evolution of it,
it was the VA taking care of veterans, you know: "Why do you need to be JTPA? Just go
to the VA, they will take care of you," and it is not true. But we got absolutely
nowhere with Mr. Quayle when he was in the Senate, and even when he was Vice President we
talked to him again. We could not get anything into JTPA on veterans priority, and our
experience with both CETA and JTPA tells us that veterans do not get served unless they
are targeted, and I think we are just in trouble if we allow veterans' services--and,
again, I have to reiterate, we do not have an employment and training program, we have a
delivery system, and that delivery system is what is in jeopardy.
Mr. Crandell. If I could just add a comment, the problem for veterans
with block grants in addition to the Federal responsibility is that block grants in any
State or locality go to the greatest need within the community and then fall short to some
extent. That greatest need is not veterans in any community in this country. There are
serious veterans employment problems, but there is no locality where veterans employment
is the most serious employment problem, and we will simply be left out.
Mr. Mascara. Thank you.
Mr. Buyer. That is a view, right, not a statement of fact?
Mr. Crandell. I'm a prophet.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Buyer. Oh.
I'm sorry, that was on your time.
Mr. Mascara. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. I had some opening remarks
that I'll spare you the agony of, and I would like to have them made a matter of the
record, to have them in the record, please.
Mr. Buyer. You may be a prophet.
Fine, that will be submitted for the record. You still have the time.
Mr. Mascara. Well, if I still have the time then, how much time does
that little orange----
Mr. Buyer. As much as you like.
Mr. Mascara. Okay.
I'm a new member of the Veterans' Committee. I pointed out earlier, I
was a county commissioner, and I know firsthand the importance of these programs in
training our veterans. Our responsibility to these veterans is to carefully review these
efforts like we are doing in this morning's oversight hearing. We must ensure that these
programs serve them, not fail them. This is even more important when we are discussing
programs which serve those veterans who are disabled while serving our country. They
certainly deserve our best efforts, and I'm afraid that some of the testimony we are going
to hear this morning will indicate our present efforts are far from being perfect and must
be improved.
I'm a realist, and from my experience with training efforts I understand
that even the best program is not going to be able to serve 100 percent of the those in
need, but the testimony we will hear this morning presents an unacceptable picture of
disabled veterans waiting too long to be served, and I think that is across the board,
everybody has to wait too long. Once they are rehabilitated, they face an even higher
hurdle of a rather disjointed effort to help them secure a meaningful job. Most disturbing
are the figures we will hear indicating that many disabled veterans simply give up and,
out of frustration, drop out of both the rehabilitation and job search programs.
I am pleased that officials from both the Department of Veterans Affairs
and the Department of Labor will testify that they recognize the weaknesses in their
efforts and are trying a variety of pilot projects to improve them. While this
subcommittee cannot solve all the problems these programs face, we must do everything we
can to see that these rehabilitation and training endeavors are improved. I mean now, not
5 years from now. Our disabled veterans sacrificed much for this country. Now it is our
turn to serve them. None of our excuses are acceptable.
Finally, I want to add my voice to those expressing indignation that
some Members of Congress would even think of introducing legislation that would repeal a
whole range of veterans rehabilitation and training programs in the name of block grants,
and this might be repetitious, but I had that in my opening remarks. I was more appalled
to read that this effort includes even the Montgomery GI bill. All I can say is, what a
travesty. This effort must be stopped dead in its tracks. I stand ready to do what I can
to put this to rest.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
I now have a series of questions.
Mr. Drake you mentioned--Drach--I apologize.
Mr. Drach. That is quite all right, sir.
Mr. Buyer. I apologize. That is not "buyer." It sure looks
like it, but you can call me "buyer" and I'll answer.
You mentioned qualification standards for voc rehab specialists should
be raised. Can you tell me, what are the levels you seek that should be established, your
recommendations?
Mr. Drach. Yes, sir. I don't have the draft or the proposed changes.
Another hat that I wear, I chair the VA's Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, which I
may not after this hearing. But the committee that has looked at that--that committee has
looked at it and has supported the changes that staff has prepared, and it goes to the
crux of being trained to actually do rehabilitation counseling and training.
As I mentioned earlier, right now a person with any degree, any college
degree, is considered eligible to be a vocation or rehabilitation specialist. What brought
this issue to the forefront, several years ago I had complaints all the time from people
out in the field that they were getting people dumped on them that had no experience, no
knowledge, and no real interest in vocational rehabilitation other than a promotion, so
people who had no background in rehabilitation but had a college degree were applying for
and getting vocational rehabilitation specialist positions.
Now we are turning it around. We are saying okay, we want to put some
real meaningful qualifications so that the degree would be job related, such as one in
counseling or vocational rehabilitation, not just any discipline, so the degree program
from college would be more job related to being a rehabilitation specialist rather than
just being a college graduate.
Mr. Buyer. Have you thought this out and actually written what levels,
whether it is master's degree, or what type of degrees?
Mr. Drach. Yes, it has been done by staff, and it has been submitted and
been approved. It was approved in March of 1994 by the VA only to, when it started to get
implemented, there was an uproar out in the field that this is going to hurt the program,
and I'm shaking my head: "You are the same people that complained to me before that
the program was hurt by nonqualified people."
Mr. Buyer. What did the VA do? Did they stop the implementation?
Mr. Drach. It has been held up, and it is being reviewed.
Mr. Buyer. When did that occur?
Mr. Drach. Within the last 2 or 3 months that it was pulled. I don't
know the exact time frame.
Mr. Buyer. Well, I think the next panel can answer that question.
Mr. Drach. But they are all ready to go, and we like them and the staff
likes them, and I'm not sure who doesn't.
Mr. Buyer. I have another question for you. I'll try to take them one at
a time, and if any of the other of the panel have a comment, please don't hesitate.
What is the fix necessary to repair the working relationship between the
VA vocational rehabilitation and the State rehabilitation programs? I mean the MOU is out
there.
Mr. Drach. Well, I think one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, with MOU's
is that more often than not they are signed by principals at the Washington level, the
Federal level. When it gets down to the State level or the local level they are virtually
ignored, in part because there is no accountability built into them.
One of the problems--and this dates back to 1975. I served on a task
force atRSA, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, talking about this very issue
where veterans fall through the cracks. More often than not a veteran comes into the State
voc rehab and identifies him or herself as a veteran, and they say, "Well, you have
to go to the VA." They go to VA, and the VA says, "Well, you are not
eligible," for whatever reason, but they never talk to one another. So then this
veteran is kind of left out to dry because State said he is not eligible, VA said he is
not eligible. Something has got to be done, and too often the State says he is not
eligible because he or she is a veteran, not because they look into the criteria.
So I think you have to develop some very good strong working
relationships and track these veterans. Maybe the States are serving a lot more than I
think they are, but they are not identified. The State needs to identify veterans who are
in the State system.
Mr. Buyer. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Grandison, you suggest that a high priority is not given to
vocational needs of severely disabled veterans. Why do you think that is so? I mean you
mentioned budgetary, but tell me why, why you think that is so.
Mr. Grandison. I attributed one of those factors to the high work loads,
the case loads, that VR&C has to deal with on a daily basis, and the delays. A
severely disabled veteran, for example, a person with spinal cord dysfunction like myself,
when you are dealing with inordinate waiting time, and then waiting to receive your
training, a person in that situation, is not only dealing with their physical disability
but they are also dealing with emotional problems. Catastrophically disabled veterans,
including our membership, have all expressed problems with depression and feelings like
they have been forgotten when they are waiting for jobs, and this leads to problems of
substance abuse which is closely related to severe disabilities.
High priority must be given to catastrophically disabled veterans.
Catastrophically disabled veterans, those who have major bodily functions impaired, are
affected more so than other veterans because not only are they trying to get their entire
lives together but also they are sitting there waiting, will I get a job, how will I take
care of my family; and what will life be like for me after training. Therefore, if these
factors are compounded by waiting for a job, waiting to get training, waiting to see the
VRS personnel, only worsens the emotional state of our members, and other veterans who are
similarly situated. So this is an anecdotal basis or reason for giving severely disabled
veterans greater priority.
The quicker they get their vocational and medical rehabilitation from
the point of injury or onset of disease the better, when they are injured on active duty,
and they will not have to dwell on the fact, okay, I'm in a wheelchair, I've lost a limb.
Mr. Buyer. What is the size of the case load you referred to?
Mr. Grandison. We have cited VA's data, for fiscal year 1995 the average
work load is 247 cases, and the prediction for fiscal year 1996 is 259 cases. Now this
falls short of VR&C's own target goal of 125 cases per year.
Mr. Buyer. Let me shift gears. In your testimony and also in response to
Ms. Waters' questions, you referred to a multidisciplinary team concept.
Mr. Grandison. Yes.
Mr. Buyer. Move that aside and tell me what you mean.
Mr. Grandison. It simply means this, that the VETS and VR&C are
coordinating these programs, all of their programs.
Mr. Buyer. That is what we all want.
Mr. Grandison. Exactly. But it is multidisciplinary approach, it is
looking at the veteran from the whole aspect, from medical rehabilitation to vocational
rehabilitation and ultimately to get placed in a job. Even under this bifurcated system,
more communication and interaction in a formal way will greatly improve the programs. So
once a veteran is evaluated for his or her employment or educational goal, once they
complete that, things are automatically shifted over to the VETS side. And at that time
VETS' personnel are aware that Joe Smith is 2 or 3 months from completing vocational
rehab, so the minute he or she completes vocational rehab the VETS program is
instantaneously initiated and everything is working in a continuum, a smooth continuum. A
team approach is basically defined in an informal way for now, where personnel from VETS
and personnel from VR&C are interacting. They can both interact in a way that this
job, this particular job, meets this particular veteran's educational status, and how to
physically accomodate the veteran once employed.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Grandison, I'm going to interrupt you for a second. What
we are going to face here on this committee--I mean the bottom line is, should VETS move
to the VA, and I like your language here. You are an attorney, are you not?
Mr. Grandison. Yes.
Mr. Buyer. It is good language. What is it? Multidisciplinary--what did
you call it? A multidisciplinary team concept. Yes, I love it.
The bottom line here--and here's my question to all of you because this
is what we are going to struggle with--is, what is the most logical method of improving
communication, case management, and cooperation between the two?
Now if you say, whether it is informal or formal or however we do it, do
we need a direct line of supervision? Perhaps. I mean my sense of the moment is, we may
have to do that, and if it is going to cause some ruckus it may cause some ruckus or some
discomfort, but that was my opening. I am not at all interested in protecting systems out
there that are operating ineffectively, and I'm bothered somewhat, and I don't want to put
words in your mouth, ma'am, but why should we be micromanaging? I feel uncomfortable to
sit here on a subcommittee and have to micromanage. We shouldn't have to be doing this.
But if there is a macro system out there that is not working effectively, that has a
severe impact in micromanagement to the disservice of the veteran, then it is appropriate
not only for us to have this hearing today, it is appropriate for us to take measures, and
the questions are when and how.
You may comment on what I just said, and then we will move to the next
panel.
Mr. Drach. Case management, Mr. Chairman, I think is an integral part of
it. Right now--and it is not unique to voc rehab but I think an inherent problem in the
system--VHA, the Veterans Health Administration, doesn't talk to the Veterans Benefits
Administration.
We had a situation in Hampton, VA, a couple of years ago. We were in the
hospital down there. They had a disabled veteran who all, but for a computer, was all set
to be discharged from the hospital and into a job. The Health Administration has no clue
that VA Voc Rehab, the benefits administration, could help that veteran purchase that
computer and get that job. When you get down to that basic of a problem, when VHA and VBA
don't talk to one another and work together, how can we expect RSA and VA or VETS and VA
to work together?
And accountability, we have got to put accountability into the system.
How you do that I'm not exactly sure. Again, I would be more than happy to share our
proposed legislation on how a restructuring should take place with an under secretary for
employment and training that would bring things a little closer together.
The case management in the Veterans' Health Administration varies from
office to office, hospital to hospital, as to who is in charge of case management.
Sometimes it is a GS-4, sometimes it is a GS-12; most of the time it is a corollary duty.
At least in VBA and Voc Rehab the case manager, for the most part, is either a voc rehab
specialist or a counseling psychologist, so it is working. The advisory committee did a
study that thick on case management in VHA. It doesn't work, they don't use it, they don't
believe in it.
Mr. Grandison. Mr. Chairman, another clarification. PVA addressed this
testimony with respect to both programs. That was basically our analysis, looking at both
programs. We made recommendations in the testimony for short-term remedies for both
programs, but we do agree with restructuring, basically bringing VETS over to the VA. We
do support that. But again, we support it as long as the program is given the priority
that it needs to effectively execute its mission, but if it is going to be the same
problem, lack of prioritization, lack of resources under a single umbrella, we are still
not going to accomplish our goal. With that said, we support Mr. Drach's comments.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Two last things, and we will move to the next panel. What we are going
to get into with the next panel, I'm going to be asking questions about cyberspace. You
mentioned computer and linkage and that type of thing. We have got to get into the modern
age, and I'm going to bring that up in the next panel, so I want you to know that, so you
can stick around, it could be fun.
Mr. Drach. Absolutely.
Mr. Buyer. The last thing, we didn't get into this. When I was reading
some materials in my studies to prepare for this, what was bothersome for me was the
dropout rate that the program suffers from, it was pretty much shocking to me, if you can
make some quick comment on the dropout rate. It was around 56 percent dropout rate before
they ever really got past the counselor. So help me out there and help out the committee
as to why there is such a strong dropout rate, because we are spending a lot of money out
there, and the bottom line, you say, all right, what is our end result and how many are
actually getting moved out into placement versus the millions and millions of dollars that
we are spending; my hair turns white.
Mr. Drach. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that the high dropout rate in
part is for those who never get to see a counselor. I don't know that there have been any
studies done. If there have been I haven't seen them. But one of the problems is, I get
out of the service today, I file my claim for voc rehab today, I might see a counselor 200
days from now. That is based on work loads. So what am I to do in those 200 days? Well,
maybe I have some other support system, maybe I get a job, maybe I just say the hell with
it and I go into early retirement, any number of things can happen. But if we don't have
the personnel to do this--and that is one reason why we recommended the increase in the
amount of money that is available for contract counseling, so if we can get these veterans
into private counselors or contract counselors earlier I personally believe that that
dropout rate will go down. But if you have to wait 6 months, 7 months, to see a
counselor--and you don't hear much about that, you hear about the backlogs on
adjudication, you know that veterans are dying before their cases are adjudicated. How
many are dying before they see a voc rehab counselor?
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Grandison, you were injured in a Jeep rollover, wasn't
it?
Mr. Grandison. Yes.
Mr. Buyer. How long between the time you got out of the hospital and the
time you were visited?
Mr. Grandison. I did not even use VA Vocational Rehabilitation.
Mr. Buyer. You didn't?
Mr. Grandison. I used my family support system.
Mr. Buyer. All right.
I would like to thank the panel for their testimony here this morning
and appreciate it, and we will have follow-up. Thank you.
Mr. Buyer. I would like to have the next panel come take their places.
Gen. Preston Taylor, the assistant secretary for veterans employment and training
services, is joined today by two distinguished disabled veterans outreach program
specialists, Tom Pifer from St. Petersburg, FL, and Allan Perkins from Houston, TX.
STATEMENT OF GEN. PRESTON TAYLOR, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR VETS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY: TOM PIFER, DISABLED VETERANS
OUTREACH PROGRAM SPECIALIST, ST. PETERSBURG, FL; AND ALLAN PERKINS, DISABLED VETERANS
OUTREACH PROGRAM SPECIALIST, HOUSTON, TX
General Taylor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and I request that my written
statement be made part of the record.
Mr. Buyer. It shall be entered.
General Taylor. Thank you.
I'll take just a few moments to make some additional remarks before I
answer any questions that you might have.
At the moment the news of the outrageous destruction of the Federal
building in Oklahoma City was announced, I was watching Cable News Network in the
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. I had just spent the day before with 30 disabled veterans
outreach program specialists, local veterans employment representatives, and Job Service
agency managers learning about their services to disabled veterans and their working
relationships with the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation Program staff. I am extremely sorry
to report to you that among those injured in that tragic, horrible act of terrorism in
Oklahoma was Mr. Stan Rombaum, a disabled veterans outreach program specialist. He was
outstationed there by the Oklahoma Job Service Agency to work with a team of Veterans
Affairs staff to assist disabled and other veterans in obtaining suitable employment.
Mr. Rombaum was seriously injured by the bombing. Since then he has had
surgery. It will be some time before we know whether or not he will be able to come back
to work. I have spoken to him and his wife and am happy to report that they seem
optimistic about the future. I know that you and the other committee members join me in
wishing Mr. Rombaum a complete and speedy recovery from his injuries and in hoping that he
will be able to return to his noble vocation of serving veterans.
It is ironic that that region of the country was the source of such
terrible news because good news for veterans also comes from that region. As I said
earlier, I went to Texas to learn more about the Vocational Rehabilitation Program and how
the DVOPs and LVERs relate to it. I had gone there with the understanding that neither we
nor the VA knew exactly how many Vocational Rehabilitation Program graduates had been
assisted by the Texas Employment Commission but that it was thought to be a very low
number.
While in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, I asked that the VA regional
offices in Waco and Houston and the Texas Employment Commission link up by computer to get
some accurate data. Just 2 days ago I received the report. In 1993, 381 disabled veterans'
served by the Waco and Houston VA regional offices completed their vocational
rehabilitation programs. According to the Texas Job Service Agency records, 172 of them
obtained employment as a result of services provided by DVOPs and LVERs and other Job
Service staff. So the reality is that approximately 45 percent of the 1994 VA Vocational
Rehabilitation Program graduates in Texas were helped into jobs by the Texas Employment
Commission system. I suspect that if we could do similar research all over this country we
would find similar results.
That data from Texas confirms what many of us suspected, our successes
have been underreported. I am convinced that the training received through the VA's
Vocational Rehabilitation Program has been valuable to its participants and that the DVOPs
and LVERs and other Job Service staff have done well in assisting program graduates.
I also want to mention the success that has taken place in Florida. Of
course in inviting Mr. Tom Pifer, the DVOP from St. Petersburg, to testify today, you on
the committee have already acknowledged that the Department of Labor and the VA work well
together there. I know from a personal conversation with the VA's vocational
rehabilitation and counseling officer in St. Petersburg, Mr. Steven Simon, that the
program relationship on behalf of disabled veterans there in Florida is a direct result of
the good relationship between VETS director for Florida, Mr. Monte Davis, and Mr. Simon.
Together these two gentlemen have made their respective resources work well together by
providing leadership at the local level towards a seamless approach between the VA and DOL
in service to special disabled veterans. I am encouraging that attitude and behavior
throughout VETS in the entire country, and I am convinced that we can achieve similar
successes in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this subject, and I am ready to
answer any questions you now have.
[The prepared statement of General Taylor appears at p. 75.]
Mr. Buyer. For the record, I would like for each of the gentlemen to
state where you come from and a little bit about what you do before you open yourself up
to all kinds of questions from the panel.
Mr. Pifer. Mr. Chairman, I'm Tom Pifer. I'm the DVOP at VA regional
office in St. Petersburg, FL. I have been there for 2 years. My area of responsibility is
the southwestern portion of Florida. Out of that one of five areas, we had approximately
half the rehabs in the State of Florida, and this past year I've increased the production
from 20 to 84 in 3 years, 320 percent.
Thank you for allowing me to come here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pifer, with attachment, appears at p. 79.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir. Allan Perkins. I'm retired Air Force senior NCO.
I have been with the Employment Service in Texas for 2 years. I'm a DVOP out of the
downtown Houston office, which means, among other things, we work with quite a few
homeless vets, many of those who are disabled.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Before I turn it over to Ms. Waters, I couldn't help but notice General
Taylor, when you mentioned the success rate, how do you define it? Employment, isn't that
defined differently between VETS and voc rehab? Some say 60, 90 days, but you guys say if
they walk through the door, boom, it counts?
General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I have been the assistant secretary for
almost 18 months over in the Department of Labor, and since I have started this job we
have focused on reinventing the agency and insisting on accountability all the way down to
the State level.
I had even before you became the chairman began to show special interest
in this area. One of the questions that I asked was how many veterans were we in our
system able to find jobs for in fiscal year 1993. I have since been herelong enough to
assess fiscal year 1994 also. In both years we found about 560,000 jobs for veterans. Now
these are the DVOPs and the LVERs.
Mr. Buyer. Wait a minute. Help me out here. Tell me what the answer is.
General Taylor. I'm coming to that, Mr. Chairman, and, of that number,
38,000 were disabled veterans. I am now asking how many of the 38,000 were special
disabled veterans. The Job Service finds jobs. As soon as a person finds a job, we
consider that individual has been placed.
We are now moving into a case management area with our special disabled
veterans. We are training our DVOPs and LVERs to do case management. This will include, as
it does in our SMOCTA program, follow up with the employee or the veteran, and the
employer. This is the direction in which we are going.
But right now the Department of Labor counts a placement as soon as we
find an individual a job. In the Voc Rehab Program, the VA, I believe, waits for about 50
or 60 days to see if that individual is still employed. We are now in the process of
teaming up with the VA and writing a memorandum of agreement. The current memorandum of
agreement is about 50 pages. We are going to streamline that memorandum of agreement and
get it down to maybe 3 or 4 pages focused on meaningful, specific, and bottom line things.
We will perhaps be redefining the way that we count a veteran as being employed.
Mr. Buyer. Fifty pages. We can streamline that pretty quick.
General Taylor. We are streamlining it pretty quick, sir.
Mr. Buyer. Let me turn it over to the ranking member for any questions
she may have.
Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say to General Taylor that I think most of us believe that,
whether you are from the Department of Labor or from Veterans Affairs, that you want to do
a good job. Nobody believes that there are any of you who are not interested, you are not
concerned, and you don't care. We really don't believe that. Oftentimes I want to do a
good job and I just find that the forces around me or the forces involved in the system
are such that I just can't, I would like to.
So I think that what we have here is an attempt by everybody to do a
good job but something is going on that does not allow either the Department of Labor or
Veterans Affairs to do the absolute best job that they can do. I really believe that, and
I believe that that something is--you know, has to do with bureaucracy as it emerges.
I thought I heard something about case load. You can not do vocational
rehabilitation, no matter who you are, even if you have a magic wand, if you have a case
load of some 200 and some, it is impossible. I mean I come from an old social work
background, and I just know something about case load and case management. So that is one
thing. And I would like to hear, what do we do to reduce? I think it has to do with money
and some other things, but I would like to hear that.
Secondly, I have also found out that the buck has to stop somewhere,
that when you have two entities or more involved in delivering services, somebody has got
to say this is how it is going to be done, this is, you know, what our expectations are,
and this is who is responsible for it. If you have something where you have people who are
prepared and they get job ready and they have to wait days and weeks and months before
they see someone who is supposedly going to connect them with the job, whose
responsibility is it to look and say something is wrong, these people are waiting too
long, move this through the system, or, you know, this is our accountability process that
nobody must wait more than, et cetera, et cetera, and I think this is what we are trying
to look at, how do we service the veterans, how do we make sure that we have a system that
encourages rather than discourages? We know whether you are disabled or just hard core
unemployed, if you are not connected soon after this training takes place you fall out of
the system, that is all it is. You just don't sit there and say, oh, I know my time is
going to come, I feel good about it, I'm just going to wait until hell freezes over, you
just say forget it.
So while I know that there are some successes and that there are people
working hard to do a good job, maybe we just need to look at how we make this system work
a lot better.
Now I know when you start to talk about taking something away from
somebody or collapsing something or consolidating something it causes a lot of fear, and
so today you don't need to prove that you know there are some people doing a good job.
What we need to hear, I think, is what are these problems and what are your real
recommendations for how to cure them.
General Taylor. Congresswoman, a lot of what you said is true, and I
concur with almost everything you said. However, there is another major factor that has to
be considered here, and that is the leadership. You could have a wonderful system in
place. You could have wonderful processes in place, but if the processes are not being
implemented properly and if there is not enough emphasis coming from the leadership or the
leadership has an emphasis in an area where it really ought to; well, we all know that
attitudes are reflected downwards from management.
Without indicting any of my predecessors, I have to tell you that I
don't believe my predecessors had the kind of interest in certain areas that I have. I'm
hoping that those who succeed me after we finish reinventing this agency, with the help of
Congress and the veterans' service organizations, will share my intent.
We do not take a step in any direction in my agency without first
calling in the VSO's and telling them what we are thinking about doing and ask for their
advice. We do the same thing with the staffers up here on the Hill. After we have the
concurrence, we move on. When I decided that we needed to put emphasis in certain areas,
like in finding jobs and establishing a better relationship with the VA, they said you are
on the right track with this. This has historically not been done.
So what I'm simply saying, another factor that has to be added to what
you said is, the proper leadership must be in place to ensure the implementation of these
good processes, if they are there and if they represent good policies. If they are not,
you must establish good policies and throw away the old processes. You must reinvent and
make new ones.
Ms. Waters. Well, you know all the information that I get, General, is
that you are indeed doing a good job, but why shouldn't there be one Department of
Veterans Employment and Training Services with the leadership responsible for the bottom
line of delivering for veterans, whether you are disabled or whether you just need
transfer into a job from active service? Why shouldn't there be one department whose
responsibility it is to take care of training, rehabilitation, job services for veterans?
General Taylor. On the surface it appears that that is a good idea,
until you start to evaluate it and do some analysis. I had a little side conversation with
Congressman Buyer before you came into the room this afternoon. I will be departing to
Germany to attend some job fairs connected with our Transitional Assistance Program. We
are responsible for training all young men and women who are about to leave the military
in finding jobs. Last year we trained 163,000. We expect to train 170,000 this current
fiscal year,and we expect that that number will go up to maybe as many as 200,000 in the
outyears. Is this a responsibility the VA wants?
We are responsible for ensuring that when our National Guard men and
women, and those in the Reserves are called to active duty for situations like Desert
Shield and Desert Storm, they can come back and not be discriminated against in getting
their jobs back. We are responsible, through subpoena authority, in a broad and in-depth
investigating process, working with the Justice Department to ensure that employers not
discriminate against our Guardsmen and Reservists getting their job back. Is VA willing to
take on that responsibility?
In addition to that, we work with the State Job Service Systems to find
jobs. I just said in fiscal year 1994 we found 560,000 jobs through the State employment
system. If we go to the VA, the VA is still going to have to deal with the State
employment systems, so what have you gained?
Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. General Taylor, you are not the enemy, okay?
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. The enemy is beyond this.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. I mean I agree with Ms. Waters. I extend compliments to you.
At times when you take on bureaucracies, even that bureaucracy which we find ourselves
part of, sometimes you say, "Well, who is the bureaucrat?" and you go, "Oh,
God I am." I mean we all are part of the Government. We want to make sure systems
work to the benefit of people. That is who we work for.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. So we are trying to work this out together, okay?
General Taylor. Well, I am going against the grain in everything I do,
but I'm willing to go against the grain. I'm willing to stand up and be counted. If I
think a policy is bad policy I will say so even if it happens to be one that the
Government is trying to implement. If it is a bad policy I think we ought to do away with
it.
Mr. Buyer. But from our position over here, we don't want you to have to
feel as though you are defending a system which we are about to change.
General Taylor. Okay, I understand.
Mr. Buyer. So I admire your advocacy, and in no way are we attacking you
and saying you are not doing a good job, because I think we think you are, but there is a
system out there--you know, we don't want you to be Don Quixote and fight windmills, all
right?
General Taylor. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. All right.
Let me now recognize Mr. Cooley for 5 minutes for whatever questions he
may have.
Mr. Cooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Taylor, I'm kind of fascinated by this process since I'm a
freshman and in fact the only veteran from the Korean Conflict that was elected to the
104th Congress. When I was discharged in 1954 I had been a Special Forces agent for the
Government and have a 10 percent disability which I never really pursued.
But the thing that I'm finding very fascinating by listening to the
testimony by the previous panel and by yours as well is, it seems like, as you spoke about
and Ms. Waters brought up too, I'm surprised that we do not have better cooperation among
the different agencies that are servicing our veterans being discharged, those that have
disabilities and regular veterans being discharged, and I think that we on this side of
the horseshoe here would like to do whatever we can do to make sure that this cooperation
comes about.
I think it is a waste of a lot of energy, time, money, and veterans'
lives maybe--maybe not their life but actually getting started back on the track of
getting back into society. I myself would like to see recommendations or possibly looking
at things that we could do to help these agencies better cooperate with each other and
therefore do a better job just doing what you are supposed to be doing.
I didn't realize until I attended this hearing that we had apparently
some problems with cooperation amongst other agencies, and I'm not sure why. I don't know
from having had an opportunity to read all of the testimony, but I find it kind of
unconscionable that we are not, as a bureaucracy, as a government, or whatever you want to
say, do not have the will to say, look, we are here to help the veteran, be he disabled or
her or not, and we are not doing that.
So I would say to you people that are in the field, that are actually
doing the day-to-day work, that I think it would be very encouraging to us to give us some
recommendations so we can make an evaluation of it because, as you know, this process is
going along, and not liking to speak about it. But we are looking at balancing the budget
and we are looking at cutting the deficit, and there are going to be some reductions in
some areas, and I think your administration, your budgeting, is going to have some
reductions. I think everything is going to have a little cut here, and there and I think
we need to find a better way to service our veterans with the money we have. I think with
better cooperation, with lesser funds, we might be able to do as much, if not more.
So I would encourage you if you can help us and educate us and tell us
what you think we need to take a look at and where we can help you do a better job and all
those people you deal with.
General Taylor. Congressman, the very fact that this hearing was called,
you are beginning to help us already. I think that as a result of this hearing, even
though there were efforts prior to the hearing having been called to establish a better
relationship with VA, this hearing will certainly energize all of us to get on with it and
to speed up the bottom line, getting to the bottom line, which is jobs for disabled
veterans.
There are a good number of things that we can do. One of them is, as I
mentioned earlier, to modernize and streamline the memorandum of agreement. I think it
would be a good idea if we sent a draft to your staffers and asked them to comment and
show it to you, and some other initiatives and innovations to our program such as
establishing special courses. We have our own schoolhouse in Denver, the National Veterans
Training Institute. We train an average of about 2,200 people a year out there, and we are
looking at the curriculum now.
Our DVOPs are well educated. About 40 percent of them have bachelor's
degrees and about 12 percent have master's degrees, and if we can modernize our courses
and better train these people to work with disabled veterans, I think that will give us
better results.
Perhaps we could team up in our training courses with VA, have VA people
and Labor people in the same classroom. I think that would help. And we heard earlier VSO
testimony that if Labor is given the names of the prospective graduates a couple or 3
months before they graduate, that would be extremely helpful to us. We don't know that
now. We could start looking for good jobs for these people 3, 4, or 5 months before they
graduate.
So we will send up all these ideas and innovations to our program to
your staffers for their review and comment, and that is the way we will work with you.
Mr. Cooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
I have a question about cyberspace.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. Currently less than 10 percent of all jobs are listed on the
National Job Bank. Estimates indicate that as many as 85 percent of the jobs will be
electronically posted on the Internet. Wisconsin, North Carolina, and New York are among
the growing number of States and cities that advertise civil service jobs on the Internet.
There are bulletin boards for virtually every profession, including journalism, marketing,
theater, music industry; you name it. You click a button, and your resume goes out to 30
people; no stamps, no envelopes, no trips to employment offices. With electronic mail
veterans can chat with employees at a company that they are targeting to learn more about
what is out there. The bottom line: It is the future and it is upon us. So my question to
you is, how is VETS preparing for job placement using cyberlinkages in either one-stop
shop concepts or other types of employment models?
General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that you asked me that
question. That has been another one of my special interests. I travel about 35 percent of
the time, which is a lot, and, as I mentioned, a couple of weeks ago I was in Texas, and
we had a little meeting just on that very subject with the TEC officials, Texas Employment
Commission officials.
Texas is, I think, one of the leaders in this area. That is why I wanted
to talk to them. They have just implemented a system with three major feeders into a
computer, the Governor's Job Bank, and there is one other feeder into this database. The
database is updated every night. If you have a PC and a modem and you are at home, you can
access the database. I asked the TEC officials, aren't you putting yourself out of
business with this, and they said absolutely not. There are 15, 16 kiosks. I believe they
intend to put up about 50 in various supermarkets around the State. I went to a
supermarket. I went to a kiosk. I was able to access the computer: $50,000 jobs, okay,
here are all the $50,000 jobs; $100,000 jobs, here are the $100,000 jobs; $10,000 jobs,
here they all are. I get a little hard copy out of the kiosk which gives me the phone
number of the employer who is looking. This is where we are going.
I just had one question for them: How are we going to identify veterans?
We can now move the resumes back and forth through cyberspace. How do we identify a
veteran? Now we have a gentleman here from Texas. Perhaps he can help us with that. But
what I'm doing now, Congressman, is, I'm asking, are we buying computers for our DVOPs
when they go out to the voc rehab or anywhere else? Laptops, can you access this data?
Mr. Buyer. General, I'm hopeful that we will do more than ask questions,
that we will look to long-term implementation of a plan to move us into the next
generation.
General Taylor. Yes, sir, we are looking at it, and we will give you a
plan.
Mr. Buyer. Okay. I don't want to micromanage the job.
General Taylor. No, sir. No, no. We will give you a plan.
Mr. Buyer. All right.
General Taylor. Congressman, we are looking at all this because this is
where it is going.
Mr. Perkins. Sir, if I can add a little to the general's answer.
Mr. Buyer. Please.
Mr. Perkins. There are two programs actually that are linked here
together. One is what we refer to as Alex. It has in all of our offices a separate
computer that clients may use on their own that has the interstate job bank, referred to
as America's Job Bank, which list the Governors' Job Bank, which lists all our State
government jobs, and we are experimenting now, and it is being used in San Antonio and
shortly in other areas, something else we refer to as Job Express, which is an abbreviated
version of our large job bank that all of us use on our desks. Those computers are
available for any client, vets or nonvets, to walk into an office and sit down and use. If
no one else is waiting they can take as long as they want. Is someone else is waiting we
restrict the time just because there are so many clients.
The other version of that is the kiosks. We have six of them in the
Houston area. They are in some of the largest grocery stores. People walk into the
supermarket, they can choose their job, they can apply on the computer and fill out an
application on the computer if they choose, or they can come into our office and fill out
a hard copy application.
And to answer the other question, we do have a code in our application
system that identifies vets, Vietnam vets, and identifies the level of disability if there
is a disability.
Mr. Buyer. I have a question for you gentlemen who traveled so far.
Would you describe the best qualifications for a DVOP from your point of view?
Mr. Pifer. Well, I think the main qualification of a DVOP is that they
be a disabled veteran and that they have a real understanding of the problems involved in
obtaining employment.
I am a Vietnam Era veteran. I am also a recruiter for 10 years in my
military career, I'm retired Army, and as part of my job when I was in the service I
pumped these kids full of information about how much better their life was going to be
after they got out, and after I retired I spent 8 months unemployed in 1990 right in the
heart of the recession, and that is how I learned how to be a DVOP, was trying to find a
job. I stuck around the employment office so much they finally hired me. That might sound
crazy, but I really think that being a disabled veteran----
Mr. Buyer. I did ask from your point of view.
Mr. Pifer. You got it.
Mr. Buyer. All right.
Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir. I think it is important to have the same
experience, and that helps. We have talked about the requirement to have at least some
kind of formal education, and that is also useful, but I think one of the most important
things is that a person that is an employment interviewer, be it a DVOP or for the general
population, needs to have two other traits. One of those, they have to really care about
what they are doing and their clients. If not, then it just becomes a paperwork shuffle to
get so many people out and take credit for so much work.
The other thing is, they have to be creative, because yes, most of the
jobs out there are low paying, most of our clients are asking for low paying, but a lot of
our clients are highly educated and need a better job, and it is up to us to be creative
in how we do the job development, where we go for that job development, what community
services we use, what employers we tap, et cetera. That requires a certain amount of
creativity.
Mr. Buyer. Gentlemen, you have been asked here to testify because, when
I look at the chart here all across American and all the cities, you are doing something
right. So I look at this and say you are doing something right, having accomplished that
which others have not been able to do. Share with us your secrets. What is that others are
not doing across the country but you are doing correctly to place veterans? Am I missing
something here? Help me out; help the committee out.
Mr. Pifer. Well, a lot of the things that have been discussed here,
Congresswoman Waters was talking about case loads and management. One of the things that
we did in St. Pete when I went to work there was, I identified who was in placement
status. Sixty days prior to the veteran completing training I get an individual employment
assistance plan from the VA, and at that point in time I set up a little tracking system
on a computer--it is really very basic, very simple--and I begin tracking that person. I
send a case management requirement to the local DVOP and the Job Service Office where the
veteran lives.
I'm in St. Petersburg, and not nearly all the veterans we serve live
there, they live in about a 12, 13-county area, and we begin the management process there
to provide services to that veteran that is needed to see that he or she gets a job. We
have job skills workshops that I put on about twice a year in two different cities, in St.
Petersburg and Tampa. We do not lose track of these people. I require a case management
report be submitted to me monthly. This helps the VRS detect any problems that we might be
having. I also make input to the DVOP in the field as to things that they might be able to
do.
This is the secret to success. We have got to get it started before the
veteran graduates, because if we lose the momentum, they are all pumped up while they are
in training, but we wait 60, 90, 120 days after they graduate to say, "Oh, by the
way, did you get a job?" That is something that the DVOP process, being outstationed
in the VARO, allows.
Mr. Buyer. What is the average case load in St. Petersburg?
Mr. Pifer. Well, we had 2 VRS's, and they had 240 apiece. Now they have
contracted that out some, and I'm not sure how much each one of the contractors have, but
I'd say between 100 and 120 apiece, but that has helped. It was just overwhelming when I
came there. They did not have the contractors.
If I can, I would just like to answer one other question that was
brought up, why we shouldn't have the separation between VA and the USDOL VETS. These
DVOPs out here are the ones that are doing it, and they are strategically located in the
local community. Me trying to get jobs for somebody in Naples, FL, which is 175 miles
away, is just impossible, but that guy or girl that is on the ground right there in Naples
can do it and provide me with the information, and I think that has had a lot to do with
the way we are doing things.
Mr. Buyer. If we put VETS under the VA, how is that going to be a
detriment to what you do?
Mr. Pifer. Well, we wouldn't have access to the local Job Service
Systems, like the gentleman from Texas was talking about.
Mr. Buyer. Why wouldn't you?
Mr. Pifer. Then you have got cross-funding. I'm not a politician or a
money manager, but they get money under the State--the State of Florida Department of
Labor gets so much money to pay my salary and to support me with a computer. I have my own
computer in the Job Service Office. I don't see where you would have that, and then you
would have one VA employee outstationed in all these other towns throughout the State of
Florida, and I can't imagine what it would be like in the State of Texas. We have about
200 DVOPs, but each one of them is responsible for the placement of chapter 31 completers
in one way or another.
The secret I have had is that I make them do case management in an
informal way. I mean it is just a sheet of paper that they fax up to me, but it gives me
the information that I need to have to find out if they do their job. I'm a monitor. I
manage the cases in St. Pete.
Mr. Buyer. You are more than a monitor, you are a model.
Mr. Perkins, do you have any comment before we move to the next panel?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir. I think that some of the things that make us as
successful as we are in Texas is that we do a lot of coordinating, not only with VA
agencies where we outsource people where we can but also with other State government
agencies. We will send our clients, for example, that may go to the VA regional office for
assistance, and it will take 90 days or 120 days or more for them to get seen, and we will
send them to the State Voc Rehab so they can be seen right away; we will send them to
Dislocated Workers; we will send them to nonprofit functions and use as many different
resources as possible. That is why I said before a good DVOP has to be creative.
Mr. Buyer. To the two guests from out of town; I want to thank you for
joining us today because the work of the DVOPs in support of our disabled veterans is not
unfamiliar, obviously, to this committee, and I appreciate what you do; and it is my
intention as chairman of this committee to see that your successes are replicated
elsewhere around the country; and I'm sure General Taylor joins me in that.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. And to General Taylor; I don't want you to leave the room
here now thinking that you are some enemy of Congress, you are not, because our sincerity
is the same and it is to the interests of the veteran, and I will do whatever is necessary
to cut through levels of bureaucracy, and we will do it.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buyer. And if I don't have the time in order to have this achieved,
I'm more than happy to move into preparation of legislation to transfer VETS out of
Department of Labor into Veterans Affairs. I don't think I could achieve that under the
present time scenario we are working under, and I'll check with leadership. But I guess
take this as the warning shot across the bow, because I am more than prepared and actually
rather happy at the moment because I know that my ranking member is also going to join me.
You know, I learned in the last term as a conservative Republican, when
I joined ranks with Joe Kennedy and Lane Evans our legislation would pass 411 to zero. So
you take a conservative Republican and match it with Maxine; we are going to win. So
accept this as a warning shot, and I know that you want to work in concert with us.
General Taylor. Well, I am delighted that you are holding these
oversight hearings, and I'm just happy that you are looking over our shoulders. The bottom
line is jobs for veterans, disabled veterans, and special disabled veterans. That is why
I'm here. I'm not looking to be in Washington for 10 years or anything like that, I'm only
here to serve for a short period of time as a servant to the veterans.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
General Taylor. You are welcome.
Mr. Buyer. I appreciate it, gentlemen.
Mr. Buyer. On next panel we will hear from Mr. John Vogel, the VA deputy
under secretary for benefits, who is joined by Mr. Larry Woodard, director of Vocational
Rehabilitation and Counseling Service; and Ms. Sharon Bunger of Rehabilitative Service and
Vocational Placement, Incorporated, a contract counseling company.
I welcome you to the committee today.
I'm sorry, John. You are no longer a deputy, you are the under
secretary.
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. I apologize.
Mr. Vogel. I thought maybe something happened between then and----
Mr. Buyer. No. I apologize. I mean I remember being a first lieutenant.
I didn't want to be called second lieutenant, I wanted to be called first lieutenant.
Please, John, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF R. JOHN VOGEL, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY: LARRY WOODARD, DIRECTOR,
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COUNSELING SERVICE; AND SHARON BUNGER, REHABILITATIVE
SERVICE AND VOCATIONAL PLACEMENT, INC., RICHMOND, VA
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask that the entire testimony be placed in the record and just would
like to make a couple of comments.
Mr. Buyer. It shall be submitted in the record in its entirety.
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, sir.
I would just like to make a couple of comments on previous testimony,
and together with Mr. Woodard and Ms. Bunger we are ready to respond to your questions and
concerns.
The Voc Rehab Program has some rather high placed Government officials,
as real success stories, not the least of which is Secretary Brown. That program has been
in place for a long time, and it focuses on the physical, the psychological, and the
environmental needs of disabled veterans and helps them to overcome impediments to
employment.
There has been some talk this morning about the qualifications standards
of vocational rehabilitation specialists and counseling psychologists. I agree with the
comments of Mr. Drach, who also chairs the Secretary's Veterans' Advisory Committee
Rehabilitation. Those standards have been tightened up. They are being discussed with the
labor organizations now, expecting to be put into place, but it is important to note that
these individuals will in fact and most of them do have now the unique special training
and the clinical and other skills needed to overcome employment handicaps and can in fact
and do draw from the considerable resources of the Veterans' Health Administration, the
medical rehabilitation needs of service-connected disabled veterans.
With respect to the cooperative agreements and the lack perhaps of full
cooperation with Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service, it is not
for any lack of effort that we fail from time to time. We are negotiating in a cooperative
way with a new memorandum of understanding that General Taylor referred to that will put
in much more concrete terms the expectations of both organizations so the objectives are
shared and we work off the same definitions.
You talked about completion rates and other things like that. A
completion rate in one program area may not be the definition of our completion rate or
our success rate. We don't in fact do a very good job of tracking people or understanding
why people drop out of the program. We need to do that.
I have a strongly held belief that this bureaucracy has created some
definitions which in fact have gotten in our way. If we induct a person into the program,
he or she understands what the program is about, and we assign a vocational rehabilitation
specialist to work with them. This program is not GI bill stuff where you pump out a check
every month, we have a case manager who deals with these individual disabled veterans.
Suppose a disabled person goes into a training program to become an
accountant, and for that you need to get a bachelor of science degree from the University
of Indiana. At about the two year point, having achieved the equivalent of perhaps an
associate degree, he or she drops from the program, they have family, economic needs, and
other things, and they get a job as a bookkeeper at the local automobile dealership. We
consider that by previous definitions as a noncompleter of the program, so that what is a
dropout and what is a noncompleter or what is a nonsuccess----
Mr. Buyer. John, most dropouts are from Purdue, not IU.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vogel. I would be interested in the makeup of the congressional
district, Mr. Chairman.
I know that is in jest.
But what I really mean to say is, we believe that we have begun or are
fairly far along the road to reengineer the way we do our work. Mr. Woodard is the new
director of the service, has been aboard, actually on board, about 6 months now, and we
are looking at the impediments that we or through legislation and other regulatory things
put in place ourselves, all with good intentions. We are focusing on the outcomes; that
is, the placement of a person in a suitable job.
Like a lot of organizations in government, both in the legislative and
the executive branch, a lot of focus has been on the processes, and we think we are moving
away from that successfully. We have energized the field. We have their input. Together
with wise oversight and guidance from this subcommittee, we think we are on the road to
turning it around.
We do have a lot of activity--a downsized military, difficult to rehab
type cases, veterans who have undiagnosed illnesses from Persian Gulf service who may have
illnesses secondary to exposure to environmental hazards. These are not easy cases. The
man from the Paralyzed Veterans of America talked about the psychological impairments. We
are equipped to deal with those things and look forward to working with you and the
subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.
Together with Mr. Woodard, we are ready to answer any questions you may
have or comments that you may like to offer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vogel appears at p. 85.]
Mr. Buyer. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Let me now turn it over to Mr. Cooley of Oregon for any questions he may
have of this panel for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cooley. Mr. Vogel, you have sat here and listened to this as long as
most of us have. I was out of the room for a minute because I had to go someplace else.
But coming back and looking at the veterans' service organizations, Department of Labor,
and now Department of Veterans Affairs, to a layperson in this process it looks like some
of this effort is duplication of effort of other departments. Can you kind of help me in
distinguishing your function of getting the veterans back jobs compared to the Department
of Labor's specific role in helping veterans getting employed as well? Where is the
distinction in there? Could you give me a definition of that?
Mr. Vogel. The real distinction is, we are dealing with
service-connected disabled veterans getting jobs. Under the umbrella of the Department of
Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service are those individuals who we have as our
single only objective in this program, disabled veterans; and all other veterans as well.
Mr. Cooley. But don't they work with disabled veterans too?
Mr. Vogel. They do indeed. We have been dealing with that more as a
handoff from us to them. We put them through a rehabilitation program, which has really
been historically defined as training, and hand them off or otherwise try to assist the
veteran in obtaining employment. We really need, and we are beginning to--and the DVOPs
from Florida mentioned it--engage the DVOP's very early on in the process, perhaps from
the inception. But clearly they have got to have more than just a handoff from the VA
saying, "here's Joe rehabed veteran; get him a job because we are loaded up with
other work and we can't do it." I think that is the key, the cooperative ability and
the resources that Labor has in the communities. We need to tap into them more through the
devices available at the local and State level.
Mr. Cooley, at one time I was the director of the VA Regional Office in
Portland, OR--a delightful assignment, I have got to tell you--and we had an arrangement
with the State of Oregon, Veterans Employment and Training Service, to be part of our
rehabilitation team, and that was about as fruitful as the commitment--General Taylor
talked about leadership--of the local leadership of the Department of Labor. From time to
time the demands on them and the resources they had didn't match up with us, but they were
part of the process. I can't tell you that it was always rosy and all the outcomes were
positive ones, but it wasn't for lack of effort. I think there are resources available in
both, and we just don't capitalize on it, we don't focus on the same objective, and we
don't count things the same way.
Mr. Cooley. But you are servicing the same client.
Mr. Vogel. We are indeed. We are dealing with disabled folk, some number
of which have psychological impairments either service connected or attendant to a
physical disability they incurred in service. It takes some special skills to deal with
those because there has to be a sensitivity on the part of the Department of Labor,
whether it is an LVER or DVOP, to what that is, and they can get that from working with
our counseling psychologists and our vocational rehabilitation specialists so that
together we can get the person a job, a suitable kind of job, not the mere entry-level
type or the bare subsistence jobs that seem to be abundantly available flipping hamburgers
at McDonald's. We want these veterans to have the ability to sustain their families, and
our completers of the program have wonderful success.
We track and know what the difference is between pre-rehabilitation
salary or wages and post-rehabilitation salary, we know what they pay State income tax,
Federal income tax, and Social Security, so we know what it is, we just need to work
together better, and I don't mean to suggest that the relationship is a poor relationship,
it just could be a lot better.
Mr. Cooley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Woodard, Terry Grandison testified on behalf of the PVA
and talked about what he felt in his sense about the lack of priority. That makes me feel
very uncomfortable. The VVA pointed out in its testimony that the applicants are treated
on a first come/first served basis with no special provisions for the seriously disabled.
How would you respond to their testimony?
Mr. Woodard. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to the
committee, subcommittee, what an honor it is for me to sit before you here this morning in
my new role serving veterans and disabled veterans in this Nation, and I might add, as Mr.
Vogel commented in the beginning, that Secretary Brown is a product of this program; I am
also a product of this program from 25 years ago.
We send the same development letter to all veterans at this point in
time. We have completed two focus groups and are discussing with our customers how to send
better letters to people who have certain levels of disability and more involved
development letters to those who are considered to be the severely disabled. Resources are
always an issue. The things that we are going through right now in defining or redefining
not what we do in our program but how we get it done is extremely important in being able
to better prioritize our resources.
We have been concerned in this program I think, with process as opposed
to the outcomes that we are after or should be after. We are looking at those things
across the country. We can't show anyone right now that we spend the professional time do
on those people who need our professional expertise because we manage people through a
case status approach, which is how this program has done things over the years.
I have a study done by a State Rehabilitation Services Commission that
addresses the prioritization of resources. It focuses on process and tracks people on
three levels of service: determining eligibility, developing plans that address individual
needs and then tracking the process according to those plans, not by status that they have
moved through.
Mr. Buyer. Would you disagree then--are you disagreeing with VVA and PVA
with regard to their feelings of a present lack of priority? Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Woodard. The law as we understand it right now doesn't give us the
authority to set priorities, but we are beginning to do that. In some areas we have set
levels of service. The first level is for those that are less severely disabled, and the
second level requires additional professional help, so we can spend more staff time with
those severely disabled veterans.
Mr. Buyer. That is what the key is here. I see sort of a snapshot of
vocational rehabilitation enrollees. There is a strong number, within the 10, 20, 30, 40
percent, and obviously there aren't as many on the other end of the spectrum. And to be
helpful to me--and I know, Terry, you are sitting over there. When you testified you
mentioned seriously disabled. You are talking about the other 50 percent. I don't mean to
be separating.
Mr. Grandison. Yes, sir, the other continuum, yes.
Mr. Buyer. Okay, and you want to make sure that they are receiving some
prioritization because your sense is that they are not at the present moment. Is that
correct?
Mr. Grandison. Correct.
Mr. Buyer. Okay.
And you are telling me, that, Steve, I can't discriminate among the
entire class? The only reason I bring this up is, here's what we presently have, and I
understand if you say, "Steve, I can't discriminate the present classes." It is
obvious that there are some veterans' organizations that are saying that they recognize
that maybe the cases that are easiest are getting done, getting priority, getting
movement, the cases that are most difficult are not getting the attention that perhaps
they deserve.
Mr. Woodard. I do disagree with that.
Mr. Buyer. Okay. I'm just telling you what the sense that I got----
Mr. Woodard. I have worked in four regional offices across the country
and been a director of one of those regional offices for 5 years, and there are not more
dedicated people in the VA than those who work in our program, and while we can't
discriminate, we do not, as it has been suggested to me, cherry pick, or serve only people
we can be most successful with. There are more people who come to us in the 10, 20, 30
percent disability range than the higher groups. People that are in the severely disabled
category are the ones that are harder to reach, to get to come to us. They are the hardest
ones to deal with, and they are a smaller category, but they are being served.
Now we all know that the timeliness and quality of our services are not
the best. That is why it is important for us to look and deal with the people in the field
who are doing the work and eliminate the inefficient things that we do so we can
prioritize our time and do better.
Mr. Buyer. Have you met with PVA or any of the other VSO's who may have
a level of concern? Have you met with them? Or, if not, I'm hopeful that is going to
happen in the future.
Mr. Woodard. Absolutely.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Mr. Woodard. The Under Secretary, Mr. Vogel, and the Secretary have
approved a concept paper, an approach to looking at our process and engaging 700 people in
our program at 140 sites across the Nation and engaging our customers, to look at the
levels of line management that we have to involve in this process in the VA. I will be
contacting service organizations to include some of them in a steering team of 15 to 20
people who will be influencers, people who will support changes as we move through this
environment of change.
Testimony earlier talked about VHA. Dr. Connor Higgins, I plan to seek
him out to serve and have thought that maybe I might even ask someone from this committee.
If that is legal or anything I don't know, but we have to involve all of the people who
are interested in continuing the high priority that this program should have in the VA and
in the Nation and do better with the resources that we have, and maybe even fewer
resources.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Vogel, in earlier testimony--were you in here when Ron
Drach testified?
Mr. Vogel. Yes, I was, Mr. Chairman. I was here throughout the whole
hearing.
Mr. Buyer. Okay. That is right.
I was bothered when I asked him questions about the levels of training,
about the VRS, and then he said that there is almost an abatement at the moment--I don't
think that is what he called it, but it is not being implemented out in the field and it
has been stopped. Would you comment on that and tell me what is going on, why has it been
stopped and why you are not moving forward?
Mr. Vogel. Yes, I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman. We developed, based on
recommendation of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, these new
qualification standards and had them dutifully classified so far as salary level, grade
level, and at the time it came to me for an approval to proceed, it was just about the
time Mr. Woodard was coming to Washington, so I held them a little bit and let Larry take
a look at them and give me some advice on whether we ought to proceed with them. He looked
them over and said we should proceed, and then, because they have to do with the people
who do the work, we were obligated by practice, if not by law, to run them by the
organized labor within VA, and they are taking a look at them now. We don't think there is
going to be a particular problem in implementing them, but that is where they are.
That sounds bureaucratic; it is bureaucratic. We think we should have it
out shortly unless we get a formal objection from Labor, and I don't believe that we will.
Mr. Buyer. And you are all prepared to move out in the field to train up
on those who are out there, those who seek to qualify or move on?
Mr. Vogel. Yes. We have a significant amount of training that has taken
place in the last few years that has tried to move--making the paradigm shift from job
training--from vocational training to job readiness. We are moving that through, and we
have an academy in Baltimore which we bring people to. We have also put that on the road,
focus training, and hope to use the National Veterans Training Institute, which is a Labor
facility, both for our people and for the people at Labor so that we can make the bond we
need to do the best job we can.
Mr. Buyer. To shift gears for a moment, why has the VA stopped the
development of the career development centers?
Mr. Vogel. Over time they became a place where equipment was and not
action. They became caught up, and they became just a place to put things. We had the
Department of Labor enter the process. Really, I give credit at least to Max Cleland who
was then the administrator of veterans affairs. He himself went through vocational
rehabilitation as a catastrophically disabled Vietnam veteran and thought it needed better
management, and he was right then; he is right today.
But the career development centers never really took off because we
really never garnered or made all the resources available. We are looking back on that
again.
Another component part we haven't talked about enough, it has been
alluded to today, is the Veterans' Health Administration. A lot of these veterans have
significant medical rehabilitation needs that have to be overcome before they can ever
compete in the job market and be made ready for the job market through rehabilitation.
But the CDC's, as we call them, they never really got off the ground
very well because we never really formed the team necessary to make that concept run, at
least across the board.
Mr. Buyer. Would you share with me your personal opinion, if I were to
introduce legislation to place General Taylor's, what he does, VETS, directly under the
VA. You have been involved in this for years and years. What do you think?
Mr. Vogel. It can be made to work. I think what this committee is
looking at and what we are all looking at is really to overcome the obstacles to success,
and if there are organizational impediments to success we need to knock those obstacles
down. We can do that. Through a memorandum of understanding we can shift----
Mr. Buyer. Not if it is 40 pages.
Mr. Vogel. No, no. Well, that was a fluff paper, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. Fluff paper?
Mr. Vogel. Yes, it was fluff. Everybody feels fuzzy and warm about it,
but it didn't really--it didn't have the concrete measurement involved.
Mr. Buyer. You know, I don't even know what is in it, I haven't even
seen it, but if somebody tells me it is 40 pages, what that tells me is, I have got two
institutions out there that perhaps don't trust each other and are trying to seek to
protect their own turf.
Mr. Vogel. That made a lot of people feel real warm and fuzzy when they
executed it because it talked about things like cooperation and respect and disabled
veterans, and they never put any teeth in it. We are putting teeth into it now, so we have
a reasonable--we have the same understanding and the same expectations and expect the
performance to lead to the concrete objective, put a disabled veteran back into the world
of work, give him back his dignity, help restore that, make him a fully functioning member
of society, and of course a side bar to that is, to the extent that he or she previously
needed public support, they need less or perhaps none of it when they can sustain
themselves and their family in real employment.
Mr. Buyer. Well, on that goal I don't think any of us could ever declare
success. I mean we are always going to work towards that.
Mr. Taylor, since you are still in the room, I understand the consultant
contract to evaluate DVOP, in that regard, will the contractors need access to the staff
at the field and the VA central office?
General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, the consultant that we have a contract
with was contracted only to help us evaluate our training programs at the National
Veterans Training Institute in Denver aimed at making adjustments so that we can bettern
train our DVOPs. I said earlier that approximately 2,200 to 2,500 DVOPs and LVERs go to
school out there every year to better enable them to do the case management and the
necessary outreach to help special disabled veterans. We expect that that work will be
concluded in June.
Mr. Buyer. Do you need access and cooperation----
General Taylor. No, sir. This is strictly an evaluation of our own
program.
Mr. Buyer. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cooley, do you have any comments you would like to make in
conclusion?
Mr. Cooley. No, sir. I would just like to ask permission to have my
statement included in the record.
Mr. Buyer. Yes, the statement will be submitted in the record.
[The statement of Congressman Cooley appears at p. 45.]
Mr. Buyer. In conclusion, let me state that I think we can all
acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern about the current effectiveness of
employment programs for veterans, especially disabled veterans. We, and especially myself,
do not enjoy the role of micromanaging the programs, but when the programs are either
ineffective or in need of redefining, the subcommittee will not hesitate to do so. My
preference, though, is macro, not micro, and the overriding concern is that of the benefit
of the veteran.
We expect cooperation between the two existing organizations in the
Department of Labor and in Veterans Affairs, and I will be deeply disappointed if it
doesn't occur because I'm going to be watching and monitoring. And I'm going to move
forward with legislation, and that doesn't mean the committee will, because I'm going to
watch and evaluate, because I don't have all the answers and I want to be a very good
listener. But at the same time if I see the impediments, I will not hesitate to move in a
bold stroke.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]