100% found this document useful (1 vote)

84 views117 pages

House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Oversight of The U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans Employment Training Service, Disabled Veteran Outreach Program and Local Veterans Employment Representative Program

The hearing was an oversight of the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment Training Service, Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, and Local Veterans Employment Representative Program. It aimed to discuss opportunities to enhance these programs, which assist veterans in obtaining employment through services from DVOP specialists and LVER representatives placed through State workforce agencies. As more servicemembers return from Iraq and Afghanistan injured, these programs are critical in helping disabled veterans transition successfully to civilian life and the workforce. The Chairwoman emphasized the need for veterans to acquire skills, obtain assistance connecting to employers, and apply their skills, in order to succeed in today's workforce environment and in light of expected increases in retirements.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

84 views117 pages

House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Oversight of The U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans Employment Training Service, Disabled Veteran Outreach Program and Local Veterans Employment Representative Program

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 117

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF
LABORS VETERANS EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
SERVICE, DISABLED VETERAN OUTREACH
PROGRAM AND LOCAL VETERANS EMPLOYMENT
REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 25, 2007

Serial No. 11058

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans Affairs

(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

39467

2008

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South
Dakota
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
JOHN J. HALL, New York
PHIL HARE, Illinois
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JERRY MCNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JERRY MCNERNEY, California
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY MORAN, Kansas

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records
of the Committee on Veterans Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed
hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to
prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting
between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process
is further refined.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

CONTENTS
October 25, 2007
Page

Oversight of the U.S. Department of Labors Veterans Employment Training

Service, Disabled Veteran Outreach Program and Local Veterans Employment Representative Program ............................................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin ..............................................................
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin ..................................
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member .............................................
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman .............................................

1
32
2
32

WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary
for Veterans Employment and Training ............................................................
Prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella ...........................................................
American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission ........................................................................................................................
Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin ..............................................................
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley ....................................................................
Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for
Policy and Government Affairs ...........................................................................
Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman .............................................................

17
89

3
33
5
38
7
40

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Larry Temple, President,
and Executive Director, Texas Workforce Commission, statement .................
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Justin Brown, Legislative
Associate, statement ............................................................................................

94
97

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunities, Committee on Veterans Affairs, to Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission, American Legion, letter dated October 30, 2007, and response letter dated November 28, 2007 ...........................
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunities, Committee on Veterans Affairs, to Richard Daley, Associate
Legislation Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America, letter dated October
30, 2007, and response letter dated November 16, 2007 ..................................
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunities, Committee on Veterans Affairs, to Rick Weidman, Executive
Director for Policy and Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America,
letter dated October 30, 2007 [NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM
MR. WEIDMAN.] ................................................................................................
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunities, Committee on Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Charles S.
Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary, Veterans Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, letter dated October 30, 2007, and DoL
responses ...............................................................................................................

iii

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

100

103

105

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABORS VETERANS EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
SERVICE, DISABLED VETERAN OUTREACH
PROGRAM AND LOCAL VETERANS
EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 2:39 p.m.,
in Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, McNerney, Hall, and
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

The Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity hearing on Oversight of the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) Program will come to order.
Like the states of many of my colleagues on the Subcommittee,
the State of South Dakota has had servicemembers that have been
activated in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including just this week the 147th Artillery National Guard Unit based
out of Salem, South Dakota. Some of these brave men and women
have returned injured and are currently in need of healthcare and
employment services. They, like all disabled veterans from around
the country, deserve our best efforts to provide a seamless and effective transition from military service to civilian life and the workforce.
Earlier this year, this Subcommittee held its first hearing that
included the U.S. Department of Labors (DoL) Disabled Veterans
Outreach Program Specialist and Local Veterans Employment Representative programs, which are primarily administered through
State employment agencies. As our distinguished panelists know,
the primary role of DVOP and LVER is to assist veterans to obtain
employment and conduct employer outreach. Specifically, the implementation of DVOP was designed to meet the employment needs
of disabled veterans. I applaud the sincere dedication of these professionals, but also believe further opportunities to enhance these
programs still exist.
(1)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

2
As I have traveled around my State meeting constituents, I have
had the privilege to meet with servicemembers and veterans to discuss issues important to them and to their families. While
healthcare, compensation and education benefits rank high among
the issues raised, the need for employment opportunities has resonated clearly among the veteran community. Their ability to acquire proficient skill sets, obtain the needed assistance to successfully connect to an employer and apply those skills to the workforce
are fundamental to their ability to succeed in todays workforce environment. This is especially true at a time when we can expect an
increased level of retirements within the next 5 years. I truly believe the Department of Labors DVOP and LVER programs have
a critical role in assisting our veterans meet this need.
Todays hearing will follow up on at least three Subcommittee
hearings held in the 109th Congress under Mr. Boozmans leadership and our first Subcommittee hearing held on March 7 of this
year. In those hearings we had the opportunity to hear from veteran service organizations (VSOs) concerns on funding levels,
DVOP and LVER training, accountability, and priority of service
for our veterans.
Mr. Boozman, I look forward to working with you and all Members of the Subcommittee, the veteran service organizations, and
the administration officials with whom we work frequently to address these concerns and ensure our Nations veterans are provided
the best services to succeed in life after their service to our country.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for his
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Herseth Sandlin appears on
p. 32.]

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your

leadership in this area.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that the National Association of State Workforce Agencies statement be placed in the record.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So ordered.
[The statement of National Association of State Workforce Agencies appears on p. 94.]
Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.
Since its inception the mission of the DVOP/LVER program has
been to place veterans, especially disabled veterans, in suitable employment. Recent changes in the law have refocused the duties of
DVOPs and LVERs and added flexibility to the system by authorizing States to fill those positions with half-time employees. However, there continues to be controversy regarding the performance
of the system.
We continue to hear that employment office managers divert veteran staff to serve other nonveteran clients. We also hear that competition would bring improved performance throughout the system.
Last year at the suggestion of the Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS), we removed language from what eventually became Public Law 109461 that would have added specific
data-reporting requirements so that VETS could implement the
common measures. Now that a year or so has passed, it will be

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

3
very interesting to hear whether common measures are providing
a sufficiently robust picture of how we are doing in placing veterans compared to their nonveteran counterparts.
I am also open to any suggestions our witnesses may have to improve the system. It is vital that our employment programs enable
veterans to find suitable employment that promotes their wellness
and quality of life.
And, again, before we get started, I want to thank our panel.
Under Ms. Herseth Sandlins leadership last year or last Congress,
on several occasions you all have always come and testified and
done a tremendous job. And again, we appreciate your hard work
for veterans. So I look forward to hearing your testimony today.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member.
Joining us on our first panel is Mr. Ronald Chamrin, Assistant
Director of Economic Commission for the American Legion; Mr.
Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director for the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA); and Mr. Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs for Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA).
Gentlemen, welcome back to the Subcommittee. I would like to
remind each of you that your complete written statements have
been made part of the hearing record, so please limit your remarks
to 5 minutes so we have opportunities to explore questions. I want
to make sure everyone has the opportunity to do so. No word yet
on votes, so I think we are going to be good to go with your opening
statements and our questions. Again, welcome today.
Mr. Chamrin, we will begin with you. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; RICHARD
DALEY, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED
VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

STATEMENT OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN

Mr. CHAMRIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to present the American Legions view on the Department of Labors Veterans Employment and Training Service.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in
May 2007 that approximately 700,000 veterans are unemployed in
any given month. Veterans returning from duty in support of the
Global War on Terror are not always coming back to a heros welcome, at least not from all employers. The American Legion notes
that VETS reports an unemployment rate in 2006 of approximately
10 percent for veterans ages 20 to 24; improved in comparison to
2005, but it is still higher than the national average of nonveterans
within the same age group and significantly higher than the general population as a whole.
This committee requested that we respond to four questions in
addition to our concerns. Number one, is DoL properly imple-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

4
menting the DVOP/LVER programs within the States? The Jobs for
Veterans Act, Public Law 107288, has eliminated the requirement
that VETS review all workforce centers annually, and this has
minimalized Federal oversight of the programs. This law has removed the job descriptions of the DVOPs and LVERs from Title 38
and given the States the ability to establish the duties and responsibility, thus weakening the VETS programs across country by
eliminating the language that required these staff positions provide
services only to veterans.
Finally, the passage of Public Law 107288 removed the Federally mandated naming formulas for assigning DVOPs and LVERs
in each State. This action has allowed each State to determine the
number of veterans employment personnel in each State based on
budgetary limitations. States now have the discretion of assigning
one half-time DVOP and/or LVER to an office while eliminating positions in offices that need veteran staff by virtue of veteran intake.
The American Legion supports the restoration of language of
Chapter 41, Title 38, that requires that all half-time DVOP/LVER
positions be assigned only after approval of the DVOP. And that
the Secretary be required to monitor all career centers that have
veteran staff assigned. The American Legion also supports legislation that restores the duties and responsibilities of DVOPs and
LVERs to include case management, outreach to veterans and job
development.
VETS provide staff to participate in a Transition Assistance Program (TAP) on military installations. Higher demands placed on
LVERs to develop TAP modules in addition to their normal assistance programs has the potential for weakening their overall capability. In order to circumvent any gaps in providing services, additional funding to support an increased number of LVERs should
occur.
The National Veterans Employment and Training Service Institute (NVTI) provides training to Federal and State employment
service providers in competency-based training courses. Public Law
109461 stipulates that a newly hired DVOP or LVER must attend
the NVTI to be trained for their position within 3 years of hiring.
Unfortunately a newly hired individual can retain the position for
212 years before they are required to begin training to ensure that
graduation is within the 3-year hiring period. Newly hired employment specialists without the benefit of NVTI training may be illprepared to properly assist veterans seeking meaningful employment or facing significant barriers to employment.
To close this loophole, the American Legion recommends that
newly hired DVOPs and LVERs must be trained at NVTI within
the first year of employment, and all untrained DVOP/LVER staff
within 3 years of hiring at the time of enactment of any new legislation must be trained within 1 year.
Number two, under what circumstances should States lose funding for failing to meet their obligations? The American Legion does
not have a position regarding this stipulation.
Number three, are part-time DVOPs and LVERs meeting the
needs of rural and urban-area veterans? The American Legion has
observed by virtue of our members who are employed as DVOPs
and LVERs that due to the half-time status, these personnel are

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

5
unable to travel to the locations where veterans tend to congregate.
Their travel budgets have been slashed. Their half-time status prohibits periods of travel that will extend beyond half a day, and
their other requirements force them to be able to assist nonveterans within their employment offices.
Number four, what is your organizations position on how DoL
tracks its performance measures? Although Public Law 107288 requires veterans priority services in all DoL programs, the Employment and Training Administration has not monitored the performance, nor do they have a way of tracking the performance. The Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training (ASVET)
cannot accurately capture local, statewide and national data to adequately assess performance outcomes or hold the various States accountable for providing priority services to veterans.
The American Legion supports that any agency providing Federal funding to provide veterans employment and training services
must adhere to priority of service and develop reporting systems
that track priority services to veterans as provided and outlined in
Title 38.
The American Legion strongly supports improvements in the reporting programs available to and administered by VETS. The
ASVET should be empowered to establish clear and up-to-date
realtime performance standards and a means of collecting data to
properly measure performance at the local, State and national
level.
I see I am running out of time, so I will wrap up.
In conclusion, transition assistance, education and employment
are each a pillar of financial stability. By placing veterans in suitable employment sooner, the country benefits from increased income tax revenue and reduced unemployment compensation payments, thus greatly offsetting the cost of TAP training.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to present
the American Legions views. This concludes my testimony. I would
be happy to answer any question that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 33.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chamrin.
Mr. Daley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY

Mr. DALEY. Thank you, Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. Paralyzed Veterans of America would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Department of Labors Veterans Employment and Training Service and programs under its jurisdiction.
The Federal Government can play an important role for veterans,
and particularly disabled veterans that are leaving the military in
large numbers. The Department of Labor Veterans Employment
and Training Service has created specific programs that provide
help for veterans seeking employment. Most important of these
services is the Veterans Employment and Training Service and the
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program coordinators, DVOPs, and
the Local Veterans Employment Representatives, better known as
LVERs. PVA, along with other veteran service organizations, have
worked for years to have clear performance standards put on both

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

6
the DVOPs and the LVERs staff. In 2002, Veterans Employment
and Training Service initiated limited performance measures based
on the rates of employment and retention for veterans.
For disabled veterans to successfully enter the job market, they
must first choose a career that most likely requires additional
training or initial training for a new employment position. This is
provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Program. The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment counselors working with the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program coordinators and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives can improve the seamless transition
from military to civilian employment.
Many veterans that are in what is known as service-connected
fall into the larger category of 30 percent disabled. They may
choose to stay in their career field that the military has trained
them in. The Disabled Veterans Outreach Program and the Local
Veterans Employment Representatives can play an important role
in these situations because they have the knowledge of the employment opportunities in the areas, they have knowledge of the veterans disability, and often they have built relationships with local
employers if they have been out doing their job as full-time representatives would be.
PVA believes that the Department of Labor is doing a reasonably
good job of implementing the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program
and Local Veterans Employment Representative programs. Their
primary responsibility is to refund and monitor these programs.
Unfortunately, Congress has not increased the funding for these
programs since 2003. Without adequate funding, these programs
have struggled to manage an increasing workload and address the
needs of the new veterans.
Along with inadequate program funding, the Department of
Labor does not have discretionary funding for special projects. Discretionary funds could be used for new pilot programs. Recently
last year, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, they had a plan to
start a vocational employment counseling office down in the Richmond, Virginia, Veterans Affairs Hospital. That is one of the larger
spinal cord units in the system, and they also have a trauma center
there. They sent out grants to a lot of areas, and one of them was
Department of Labor, to seek some funding. And the Department
of Labor didnt have funding for extra programs like that. Eventually they did receive money from a private source, and they opened
that office back in August, and they hope to open three more in the
next 18 months depending on revenue available.
To address the needs of todays veterans, Congress might consider reimplementing a program similar to the servicemembers Occupational Conversion and Training program (SMOCTA). Although
this program was funded by the Department of Defense (DoD), it
was administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
and Department of Labor. This was considered one of the better
programs to serve transitioning military personnel. SMOCTA was
established during the downsizing of the military for veterans discharged after August 1st 1990 and was intended to help the veterans that had limited transferable job skills. A similar program

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

7
could be useful for the young men and women today transitioning
from the military.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you again for an
opportunity to express our concerns on this issue. I will be available to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 38.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Daley.
Mr. Weidman, welcome back. We look forward to your testimony.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

A467A

17
use a doggone dime of your incentive dollars that you control in
order to service this population.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. As we have stated in other Subcommittee
hearings, we will work more closely with the Governors to get some
of this as well. Mr. Chairman also commented on reporting directly
to the Assistant Secretary to provide some information on how to
best allocate discretionary dollars. Yet, we want to ensure that the
money that is going through this program has accountability. It is
for the benefit of the veterans, not just to allow Governors to have
additional resources to support their staff that is also doing a
whole host of other work. I appreciate the comments that you have
made.
Mr. Chamrin, I noticed you might want to make one final comment, but I do want to move to the next panel. We could talk perhaps after the hearing, if that is okay. Thank you.
I thank all three of you, again, for your service to our Nations
veterans, and for your helpful testimony on these important programs. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
I would like to invite our witness on our second and final panel
to the witness table.
Joining us on the second panel is the Honorable Charles
Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and
Training with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Secretary Ciccolella, thank you for being here. We look forward
to your testimony and any responses to our questions and any comments that you also may have or would like to share based on what
we have just heard from the first panel. Again, your entire written
statement has been made a part of the record. We would now recognize you to summarize any opening remarks for 5 minutes.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

24
the stigma of going through TAP if you are not going to get out.
Because as soon as you make an effort to go through just to see
what is out there or to again if you plan on staying in but you want
to maybe have the opportunity of moving your job skills to know
what is going to be available when you eventually do get out. It
seems that there is a concern among the service persons that there
is a stigma attached to that and there is a feeling that you are
going to get out. So, again, we have to kind of figure out how to
overcome that.
But I think that is something that the Subcommittee has really
done a good job, Madam Chair, at moving forward and is something that I would like for us to continue working on very hard.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. CICCOLELLA. You are absolutely right. If I could just say,
that you are absolutely right. And let me tell you, the military
services are beginning to understand that. And that is what I hear.
And I spend an awful lot of time at the Pentagon these days, and
that is what I hear at the meetings that we have.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, I would like to associate myself
with Mr. Boozmans comments on the importance of TAP and removing the stigma.
I agree with you, too, Mr. Ciccolella, that we need to get the servicemembers access to TAP earlier in the process. I am of the strong
opinion that it should be mandatory and earlier in the process. I
think it should be both. Because you even said, right after you said
you dont think making it mandatory is the way to go, you said because some servicemembers dont need it, but most of them do. I
would much rather have servicemembers go, when they didnt need
it, they are a little bored, they are fine, than to have a number who
really need it not take advantage of the opportunity.
With that, if you couldand I dont expect you to do it today, but
if you could get us an estimate on the number of personnel needed
to fully implement TAP, to ensure that every module is given to
every transitioning soldierwell, every transitioning servicememberin all the branches. I just would like to see an estimate
on how many LVERs would be required to do that.
Mr. CICCOLELLA. I will get you those. I will get you those figures.
But we have the LVERs and we have the contract personnel to do
that.
[The information from Mr. Ciccolella is as follows:]

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

34
Finally, the passage of P.L. 107288 removed the Federally-mandated manning
formulas for assigning DVOPs and LVERs in each state. This action has allowed
each State to determine the number of veterans employment personnel in each
State. States now have the discretion of assigning one half time DVOP and/or LVER
to one office, while eliminating positions in offices that need veterans staff by virtue
of veteran intake.
The American Legion supports the restoration of language to Chapter 41, Title
38, USC, that require that half time DVOP/LVER positions be assigned only after
approval of the Director of Veterans Employment and Training (DVET), and that
the Secretary of Labor be required to monitor all career centers that have veteran
staff assigned. The American Legion also supports legislation that restores the duties and responsibilities of DVOPs and LVERs to include case management, outreach to veterans and job development.
TAP administration by State governed DVOPs/LVERs
VETS provides professional veterans employment personnel, DVOPs/LVERs, to
participate in the Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) on military installations.
Higher demands placed on LVERs to deliver TAP modules, in addition to their normal employment assistance programs, has the potential for weakening their overall
capability. In order to circumvent any gaps in providing services, additional funding
to support an increased number of LVERs should occur.
Training for DVOPs/LVERs under state jurisdiction
The National Veterans Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI) provides training to Federal and state government employment service providers in
competency based training courses. Current law requires all DVOPs and LVERs to
be trained within 3 years of hiring.
NVTI has provided several thousand training sessions for State Employment Security Agency staff, Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff, DOD
staff, and Department of Veterans Affairs (VAs) Vocational Rehabilitation staff.
NVTI provides standardized training for veterans advocates providing employment
and training services. The positive impact on the quality of services provides veterans with well-trained vocational specialists across the country.
P.L. 109461 stipulates that newly hired DVOPs/LVERs must attend the NVTI
to be trained for their position within 3 years of hiring. Unfortunately, a newly
hired individual can retain their position for 2.5 years before they are required to
begin training to ensure that graduation is within the 3-year hiring period. Newly
hired employment specialists, without the benefit of NVTI training, may be ill-prepared to properly assist veterans seeking meaningful employment or facing significant barriers to employment.
To close this loophole, The American Legion recommends that newly hired
DVOPs/LVERs personnel must be trained at NVTI within the first year of employment and supports that all untrained DVOP/LVER staff within 3 years of hiring at
the time of enactment of new legislation must be trained within 1 year. The American Legion also recommends $6 million of funding to NVTI.
Interagency Cooperation Between DOLVETS and VA at State Levels
It is our observations that the interagency collaboration and communication between the VR&E program, and DOLVETS is lacking.
A Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between VA and DOL was developed
and signed in October 2005 stating that each agency would work for the smooth
transition of veterans to the civilian workforce. This agreement is authorized in accordance with Title 38, USC, 4102A(b)(3).
In discussions with numerous VETS representatives across the country, The
American Legion is hearing a variety of opinions on the current implementation
process and progress of the MOU. A majority of VETS representatives contacted
spoke of a markedly improved level of communication between the two agencies,
along with other positive developments such as improvement in local data sharing
and combined training on the local and national levels. In addition, national representatives from the two agencies are currently reporting a close and cooperative
relationship, and the expectation is that this relationship will continue to improve
over time.
In some states, however, it has been reported that the signing of the MOU has
not led to an improvement in cooperation between the two agencies. Some problems
cited were a difference in the perceptions of the primary mission, differing education
levels of VA case managers and DVOPs and LVERs, and the unenforceable mandate
for the two agencies to communicate and cooperate on a local level. DVOPs and
LVERs are controlled by each individual state and have their own requirements
making a state and Federal program difficult to synchronize.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

35
2. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD STATES LOSE FUNDING
FOR FAILING TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS?
The American Legion does not have a position regarding loss of funding for failure
to meet obligations. We do, however, advocate for continuous oversight on all Federal programs for veterans.
3. ARE PART-TIME DVOP/LVERS MEETING THE NEEDS OF RURAL AND
URBAN AREA VETERANS?
The American Legion has observed, by virtue of our members who are employed
as DVOPs/LVERs, that due to half time status, these personnel are unable to travel
to the locations where veterans tend to congregate. Their travel budgets have been
slashed. Their half time status prohibits periods of travel that will extend beyond
half a day, and their other requirements force them to be able to assist non-veterans
within their employment offices.
The American Legion reiterates to only have half time DVOPs/LVERs at the approval of the DVET.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

4. WHAT IS YOUR ORGANIZATIONS POSITION ON HOW THE DOL

TRACKS ITS PERFORMANCE MEASURES?
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), DOL stated that although
P.L. 107288 requires veterans priority services in all DOL programs, ETA has not
monitored the performance nor do they have a way of tracking the performance.
The ASVET cannot accurately capture necessary local, state wide and national
data to adequately assess performance outcomes or hold the various states accountable for providing priority services to veterans. Additionally, states are not required
to report to the ASVET.
The American Legion supports that any agency provided Federal funding to provide veterans employment and training services must adhere to priority of service,
and develop reporting systems that track priority services to veterans as provided
and outlined in Title 38, U.S.C. Furthermore, all DOL One-Stop Centers should
work with the VETS to ensure the operations of the One-Stop Centers meet or exceed the Federally-mandated priority of service for eligible veterans.
The American Legion strongly supports improvements in the reporting programs
available to and administered by VETS. The ASVET should be empowered to establish clear, up to date, real time performance standards and a means of collecting
data to properly measure performance at the local, state, and national level.
The American Legion also seeks and supports a revision of existing VETS reporting requirements for measuring performance standards and for determining compliance with requirements for providing employment services to veterans.
FULL FUNDING FOR DOLVETS
The President requested $228.1 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 to support the
staffing and grant making ability of VETS. This is a $5.1 million, or 2.3 percent,
increase over FY 2007. For FY 2008, the House provided an additional $3 million
for Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), $1 million for NVTI, and $1
million for additional employees, including one additional employee in each of the
six regional offices to address complaints and investigations arising under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Veterans returning from duty in support of the Global War on Terror are not always coming back to a heros welcome, at least not from all employers. The American Legion notes that DOLVETS reports an unemployment rate in 2006 of approximately 10 percent for veterans aged 2024, improved in comparison to 2005,
but is still higher than the national average of non-veterans within the same age
group and significantly higher than the general population as a whole. Numerous
national publications have reported veterans are having a more difficult time finding jobs than non-veterans.
The employment market is tougher for young veterans as illustrated in a January
2007 Study by the National Organization of Research, Chicago.
An illustrative example of this complexity is the experience of the respondent
whose public identifier is 8224. He reported exiting the military in week 45
of 1998. He was then employed every week from week 46 in 1998 to week
13 of 2000. He returned to the military from week 14 of 2000 to week 29,
and returned to employment from week 30 of 2000 to week 50. He returned
to the military in week 51 of 2000, and stayed until week 12 of 2001. He
was employed from weeks 13 to 44 for 2001, and then was out of the labor
force from week 45 to week 48 of 2001. This was followed by a spell of unemployment from week 49 of 2001 to week 40 of 2002. The respondent was then

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

36
out of the labor force for 10 weeks, and then was employed from week 52
of 2002 to week 49 of 2004.
The American Legion receives numerous requests for employment assistance and
comments on unemployment and underemployment. This is a key reason why the
funding for the VETS program is so critical.
Veterans need proper training and tools to begin new careers after they leave
military service. For example, the Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP)
account has only received $7.3 million in annual funding, which has allowed the
program to operate in only 11 states. This is unacceptable. There are thousands of
veterans available for work, but some lack marketable or technical skills. The problem is a lack of adequate funding for this and other veteran only programs.
To ensure that all veterans, both transitioning and those looking for employment
assistance well past their discharge, receive the best care; the DOLVETS program
must be adequately funded. The American Legion has observed that the ASVET
does not have any discretionary funding that would enable him to create programs
or enhance current programs to help veterans. With the great need for employment
assistant, we feel that the current funding levels are inadequate. Please refer to appendix 2 for the presidents FY 2008 Budget Request for DOLVETS.
Contrary to the demands placed upon VETS, the funding increases for VETS since
9/11 does not reflect the large increase in servicemembers requiring these services
due to the Global War on Terror. In support of this fact, the inflation rate from January 2002 to January 2007 was 14.3 percent and yet for State Grants alone, funding
has only increased a mere 1.2 percent ($158 million to $161 million). The Presidents
Budget request for FY 08 will allow for an increase of one percent for State Grants,
the mechanism for funding DVOPs and LVERs. However, this does not meet the
inflation rate of salaries and approximately 100 positions will be eliminated nationwide next year.
Because of the enactment of P.L. 107288, each state receives an individual grant
based upon their State Plans and how many positions that they feel that they require. The new funding formula emplaced in 2002 re-calculated the authorization
for State Grants leaving the onus of how many staff members to fund the responsibility of each state. It is our understanding that if a state chose to employ half time
DVOPs and LVERs instead of a full time employee that is their prerogative. However, DOLVETS has no enforcement authority to mandate that states request only
full time staff and in greater numbers. Since the enactment of P.L. 107288 there
has been a net loss of DVOPs and LVERs as the net cost per FTE has risen at
a rapid rate. Moreover, the Wagner-Peyser grants from DOL have a direct correlation to the number of indirect costs to VETS. DOLVETS can provide a detailed
breakdown of their funding, authorization, and formulas.
More services and programs are needed and yet, since 2002, the VETS program
has only received a modest four percent increase. Accordingly, The American Legion
recommends full funding for DOLVETS.
SERVICEMEMBERS OCCUPATIONAL CONVERSION AND TRAINING ACT
(SMOCTA)
The American Legion continues to encourage Congress to reauthorize and adequately appropriate funds for the Service Members Occupational Conversion and
Training Act (SMOCTA) program. SMOCTA was developed as a transitional tool designed to provide job training and employment to eligible veterans discharged after
August 1, 1990. SMOCTA was the only Federal job training program available
strictly for veterans and the only Federal job training program specifically designed
and available for use by state veterans employment personnel to assist veterans
with barriers to employment.
Veterans eligible for assistance under SMOCTA were those with a primary or secondary military occupational specialty that DOD has determined is not readily
transferable to the civilian workforce or those veterans with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or higher. SMOCTA is a unique job-training program
because there is a job for the veteran upon completion of training. Specialists publicly praised the effectiveness of SMOCTA because it successfully returned veterans
to the civilian workforce.
The American Legion recommends SMOCTA be reauthorized and fully funded.
CONCLUSION
Transition assistance, education, and employment are each a pillar of financial
stability. They will prevent homelessness, afford veterans to compete in the private
sector, and allow this nations veterans to contribute their military skills and education to the civilian sector. By placing veterans in suitable employment sooner, the
country benefits from increased income tax revenue and reduced unemployment

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

37
compensation payments, thus greatly offsetting the cost of TAP training. DOL
VETS requires full funding.
The American Legion looks forward to continue working with the Subcommittee
to assist the nations veterans and to assist in their employment and financial stability. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
testimony.

APPENDIX 1
GAO Reports
The Government Accountability Office recently produced many reports regarding
the Department of Labor and the Department of Labor VETS. GAO071096, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives
GAO recommends that Labor step up action to ensure that all stand-alone
offices be affiliated with the one-stop system.
GAO071020
GAO recommends that to ensure the implementation of their agreement
and the efficient and effective use of resources, GAO recommend that Labor
and VA develop a comprehensive plan to implement their agreement and
undertake additional guidance and monitoring efforts, and that VA review
the role of the employment coordinator, and assess the use of the job resource labs.
GAO07907
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor develop an internal review
mechanism for all unresolved claims before they are closed and claimants
are notified and establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy of data
entered into DOLs database.
GAO07594
GAO has made a number of recommendations to improve the performance
measurement system for the DVOP and LVER programs and to better understand services and their impact for job seekers in the one-stop system,
including veterans.
GAO071051T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

GAO reported additional actions that would further improve the workforce
system.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service, FY 2008 Congressional Budget Justification.

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the Department of Labors Veterans Employment
and Training Service (DOLVETS) and programs under its jurisdiction.
PVA is an organization of veterans who are catastrophically disabled by spinal
cord injury or disease. Our members and other individuals who suffer from similar
injuries or diseases do not receive proper consideration for employment when applying for a job. This is often due to barriers in the workplace, false perceptions of the
potential costs to employers of hiring people with disabilities, and the perceptions
many people still have about veterans.
The federal government can play a critical role for veterans, and particularly disabled veterans that are leaving the military in large numbers. The DOLVETS has
created specific programs that provide help for veterans seeking employment. The
most important services provided by VETS are done by Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program (DVOP) coordinators and Local Veterans Employment Representatives
(LVER). PVA, along with many other veterans service organizations, worked for
years to have clear performance standards put in place for both DVOP and LVER

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

39467A.001

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Prepared Statement of Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director,

Paralyzed Veterans of America

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

39
staff. In 2002, VETS initiated limited performance measures based on the rates of
employment and retention.
Following the enactment of P.L. 107288, the Jobs for Veterans Act, VETS
began implementing more focused performance measures for DVOP and LVER staff.
These changes were meant to emphasize the placement of severely disabled veterans and other veterans facing barriers to employment and to avoid some forms
of cherry picking. Though it is unpleasant to accept, when someones job is at risk,
human nature may cause the employment specialist to select the easy placement,
over the one requiring greater effort. The revision of the duties of DVOP and LVER
staff in the Jobs for Veterans Act and the continuing efforts of VETS to establish
meaningful performance standards are essential to reinforcement of the services
they provide. PVA welcomes these changes as they are essential to a viable job
placement service.
For disabled veterans to successfully enter the job market they must first choose
a career path that requires additional, or initial training for new employment skills.
This is coordinated through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program (VR&E). The VR&E counselors working with
local DVOP and LVER representatives can improve the seamless transition from
military to civilian employment. Many disabled veterans fall into the larger category
of 30 percent service-connected disabled and may choose to stay in the career fields
that the military has trained them in. The DVOP and LVER can be an important
resource for these veterans because they have knowledge of the employment opportunities in that area, some understanding of the veterans disability, and often have
built a relationship with local employers.
PVA remains concerned that the race to simplify, computerize and decentralize
the employment system through electronic-based self-service systems and one-stop
career service centers might diminish the role of DVOP and LVER staff. We do believe there are some advantages to one-stop veterans job service offices. The ability
of a disabled veteran, who may have difficulty leaving his or her home, to have access to the employment services provided can be a tremendous benefit. However, the
advantage of face-to-face interaction between DVOP and LVER staff members and
veterans cannot be overstated. It seems that unless there is a paradigm shift, the
number of DVOP specialists and LVER staff will be reduced.
We believe the DOL is doing a reasonably good job of implementing the DVOP
and LVER programs as required by law. Their primary responsibility is to fund and
monitor these programs. Unfortunately Congress has not increased the funding for
these programs in many years. Without adequate funding, these programs have
struggled to manage an increasing work load, and it has become more difficult to
address the needs of new veterans needing assistance. Along with inadequate program funding, the DOL is not appropriated discretionary funding for special
projects. Discretionary funds could be used to test pilot programs, or to fund a program that proposes a new attempt to find employment for veterans.
Occasionally, a state falls short of the requirements outlined in their employment
service grant. However, this should not be a cause for DOL to request the return
of funding. Instead, this would indicate that more oversight is required by the Director for Veterans Employment and Training (DVET) to provide technical assistance
and training at the state level. Removing funding from a state program that is not
performing to the required standards does not help that program, and ultimately
the veteran looking for work may bear the consequences of this action.
The DOL tracks states performance by the number of persons entering the workplace. They also track the number of veterans that register with the DVOP program. The DOL does not track the number of veterans that gained employment because of the assistance of the states employment programs. Sometimes these programs could have limited input into the veterans employment, and sometimes they
have no input at all. Perhaps the DOL could conduct a pilot program in several
states to follow up with the veterans after they leave the unemployment roles. They
could try to determine what influence the state office had in securing that job for
the veteran. Although this may be a labor intensive exercise, it may help determine
if the states efforts are producing the results that are intended for veterans.
To address the needs of todays veterans, Congress might consider reimplementing
a program similar to the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training,
(SMOCTA) program. Although this program was funded by the Department of Defense, it was administered by the VA and the DOL. This was considered one of the
better programs to serve transitioning military personnel. SMOCTA was established
during the downsizing of the military for veterans discharged after August 1, 1990,
to help those veterans that had limited transferable job skills. A similar program
would help many of the younger men and women transitioning from the military
today, and those reserve and guard members reentering the workforce.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

40
This program provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers
who provided training for veterans that led to permanent employment. The program
also included funds for assessments, development of training plans, and supportive
services for the trainee. The DVOP and LVER staff developed the employment and
training plans. Veterans eligible for assistance were those with military occupations
that were not transferable; those that were unemployed for a long period of time;
and those with a 30 percent or greater service-connected disability.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to express our concerns
on this issue. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
f

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman,

Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs,
Vietnam Veterans of America
Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and distinguished Members of this panel. On behalf of our National President, John Rowan,
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) thanks you for the opportunity to appear here
today to express our views on this vital veterans issue of how well the Local Veteran Employment Representative (LVER) program and the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) is working, particularly for disabled veterans, recently separated service members, and those veterans most at risk of becoming homeless. My
name is Rick Weidman, and I currently serve as Executive Director for Policy &
Government Affairs for VVA.
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) has repeatedly advocated the wellness
model as the paradigm toward which all of the programs, benefits, and services
should be aimed. What this means is that it is the duty of the people of the United
States, through our government institutions and with our community resources, to
do everything possible to restore the men and women who have placed their lives
on the line in the common defense to the highest degree of autonomy and functioning possible following that military service.
Said another way, all of us should be using a holistic view of the physiological,
neuro-psychiatric, and psycho-social aspects of health of all returning veterans, but
particularly disabled veterans. The litmus test of achieving the highest degree of
wellness possible for veterans of working age is the ability to obtain and sustain
meaningful employment.
While VVA still believes that the Nations health care system for veterans is still
under-funded, despite strong increases this year, and that the organizational capacity of the VHA is not yet adequate to meet the full range of legitimate needs of the
eligible veterans population, the simple fact is that we as a Nation do spend billions every year on health care, readjustment counseling, vocational rehabilitation,
educational benefits, PTSD treatment, substance abuse treatment, and numerous
other programs designed to assist veterans. However, if the veteran is not assisted
to obtain and sustain meaningful employment, then there is no payoff for the individual or for the Nation.
To use a football analogy (borrowed from Mr. Boozman!), without the points on
the board, it does not matter how many yards in offense one compiles. One can
argue that we expend all of our energy in moving the ball eighty plus yards down
the field, but have not concentrated enough on how to actually get the ball into the
end zone to score. Obtaining meaningful work at a living wage gets us into the end
zone for that veteran or disabled veteran, and puts points on the board. So, securing
a job is a key component (perhaps THE key component) of helping each veteran
achieve the highest degree of autonomy and wellness possible, which is (or should
be) the explicit goal of every program and service for veterans.
It is because of this centrality of obtaining and securing meaningful employment
at a living wage is in the readjustment process, particularly of our newest veterans,
that what this panel does is so key to a pay-off of all of the rest of the efforts
extended by our Nation.
History & Background
The Employment Service was created as a non-statutory entity in 1915, under
President Wilson. The United States Employment Service (USES) was created as
a statutorily mandated entity in 1933 as part of the Social Security Act, along with
the legislation that established unemployment insurance. The Wagner-Peyser Act,
as it is commonly known, established priority of service for veterans who sought
assistance in finding employment. Employers made the argument to the Congress

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

41
that if business was going to pay taxes to pay for unemployment checks to former
workers, that there needed to be a strong effort to get them back to work, thereby
reducing the UI tax rate for the employer.
From the outset of the reconstituted Employment Service, veterans were legally
accorded priority of service. Veterans organizations made the argument that veterans should be first in line for any such assistance. As this was a mere two years
following the World War I veterans march on Washington, and the spectacle of
American troops firing on American veterans on the national Mall, Congress and
the President agreed and saw fit to ensure that veterans, who had sacrificed the
most, received priority in referral to job openings and for other services.
Creation of the LVER Program
Unfortunately, a mere decade later (and in the middle of World War II), veterans
priority of service was not working very well at the local level, in many instances.
Essentially the Congress found that there was no meaningful quality assurance system to ensure that veterans received their rights to priority. Therefore, in 1944, as
part of the set of laws known as the GI Bill, priority of service was reiterated,
and the Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) program grants to the
states created, in order to help ensure that priority of service actually happened in
each and every office. The theory was that all local employment service office managers were intent on obeying the law, and that where veterans did not receive priority of service the LVER would monitor all activity, make the office manager
aware of any problems caused by a few bad apples, and the problem would be corrected. That is why the LVER, by law, was supposed to report directly to the local
office manager. While this fix helped in many instances, it was still problematic
and uneven in how well it functioned.
Also beginning in 1944 and 1945, many cities began to emulate the model first
promulgated in Bridgeport, Connecticut, to establish veterans multi-service centers,
with VA benefits counselors and other VA services providers, employment service
representatives, unemployment claims examiners, and any other available public
and private resources all existing under a single roof, in order to coordinate the response of the entire community to welcome home the returning veterans. Most of
these had a governing board that were like a model Rotary club, with representatives of the various aspects of the business community, the clergy, political leaders,
veterans organizations, civic organizations such as the Elks, labor unions, and other
key elements of that particular community. In this way it really was a total response of each community to the returning veterans, and therefore an evolving
strategy in each community.
Similarly, the GI Bill provided for farm training, vocational training, and other
skills training as well as attending college (which for many was training that led
to a better job than they could have ever dreamed of before their service in the war).
In fact, more than 51% of the GI Bill usage was for training other than accredited
four-year colleges. Many veterans were able to attend college because of the educational benefits and the 5250 club which allowed them to have $50 unemployment payments (what we today call UCX) for a full year to get themselves settled
and to find a college to attend or a program to pursue.
Self Employment & Small Business as a Means to Employment
For many, the VA also administered a program to help veterans establish small
business concerns that included direct loans to start their business. This resulted
in countless very small businesses, as well as many firms that grew into medium
and large companies, all because it was part of a true Nation strategy to assist returning veterans to develop a way to earn a living, either by working for someone
else, or by starting his or her own small business. Among many other symbols of
this highly successful program was the ubiquitous Veterans Taxi found in cities
and towns all across America.
In response to continuing problems, a system of Director, Veterans Employment
Services was created with a Director in each state, who was a Federal employee.
One of the problems from the outset was that there was inexact control at the state
and local level as to the actual performance of the service delivery staff because all
of the employees were state workers who although they were funded by Federal
funding were not subject to direct Federal control or accountability. Some of these
Directors were very good, while others were not so good. Frankly, the most effective
state DVETs were the ones who brought outside political clout to their job that
helped them ensure that the state employees at the local Job Service offices did the
right thing for veterans. While they were all ostensibly civil servants, the selection
process was (and still largely is) highly political. In many states the employment
service was not responsive to the needs of Vietnam veterans.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

39467A.101

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella,

Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training,
U.S. Department of Labor
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about veteran employment grant programs of the Department of Labors Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS). The Department is grateful for the interest of the Committee on these very important issues for veterans, especially for those veterans returning from the Global War on Terror who are interested in returning to a productive career.
VETS mission is to provide veterans and transitioning servicemembers with the
resources and services to succeed in the 21st Century Workforce by maximizing
their employment opportunities, protecting their employment rights and meeting
labor market demands with qualified veterans. Our charter is a direct reflection of
the nations commitment to meet the employment, training and job security needs
of those who serve in military uniform.
The enactment of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), P.L. 107288, in November
2002 has resulted in significant improvements in the provision of employment services to veterans and is showing a positive impact on the employment outcomes of
veterans. We are completing the fourth year of implementing the law, and we have
seen major improvements. My testimony today will describe some of those accomplishments.
Overall, the JVA has provided opportunities to maximize the flexibility of the
states to provide employment assistance to veterans, while simultaneously requiring
states to be more accountable for performance outcomes. The JVA redefined the
roles of the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) staff and redefined the federal-state relationship
as a partnership. Under the JVA, states are required to submit grant applications
to VETS for DVOP/LVER funding, which VETS allocates to states in proportion to
the number of veterans seeking employment in a state. These grant allocations also
take into account the workload the states assume through the Transition Assistance
Program (TAP) employment workshops.
Since much of the interface with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) service is through the workforce investment system, at this point I would like to briefly discuss that relationship.
VR&E and VETS continue to work in partnership, along with State Workforce
Agencies (SWAs), on behalf of VR&E job ready veterans who are referred to and
registered with the State Workforce Agencies for intensive employment services.
Our partnership to increase the employment opportunities and placement in suitable employment of service-disabled Chapter 31 veterans is defined in a formal
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and the results continue to improve. That positive working relationship has also carried over into other initiatives and strengthened cooperation and coordination with VETS state partners.
The JVA has provided the states with greater flexibility to adapt their programs
to the unique needs of local areas where veterans need jobs and employers are seeking capable applicants in exchange for improved accountability. Our outcome data,
which includes the Entered Employment Rate and the Employment Retention Rate,
indicates that we are making progress in helping veterans secure employment.
During Program Year (PY) 2003, which ended on June 30, 2004 and encompassed
the first year of implementation, the Entered Employment Rate was 57% for veterans and 53% for disabled veterans. At the end of PY 2005, outcomes for veterans
and disabled veterans showed an increase in each categoryto 61% for veterans
and to 56% for disabled veterans, and, for the quarter ending March 2007, the Entered Employment Rate for veterans was 60% and 56% for disabled veterans. The
Employment Retention Rate for PY 2003 was 79% for veterans and 77% for disabled
veterans. Two years later, at the end of PY 2005, the retention rate for veterans
increased one percentage point. For the quarter ending March 2007, their retention
rates were 79% and 78%, respectively. This comparison of outcome data demonstrates the JVA is having a positive impact, and we hope to see more improvement in the future.
Since implementing the JVA we have:
Issued specific guidance to states redefining the responsibilities of the DVOP
specialists and LVER staff;
Developed training programs that support the JVA by:
Addressing the new provisions of the law;
Incorporating the changes in DVOP and LVER responsibilities;

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

93
Entered Employment RateDisabled Veterans
Employment Retention RateDisabled Veterans
Grant Based Outcome Measures
DVOP Performance Elements
All Veterans
1. Entered Employment Rate Following Staff-Assisted Services
2. Employment Retention Rate
Disabled Veterans
3. Entered Employment Rate Following Staff-Assisted Services
4. Employment Retention Rate
LVER Performance Elements
All Veterans
5. Entered Employment Rate Following Staff-Assisted Services
6. Employment Retention Rate
Recently Separated Veterans
7. Entered Employment Rate Following Staff-Assisted Services
8. Employment Retention Rate

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Attachment 2
RESPONSES TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES QUESTIONS
How does your agency ensure proper implementation of the DVOP/LVER programs?
Response: The JVA required that DOL establish a comprehensive performance
accountability system. This has been established with the following components:
a. Five year state plan with annual modifications: This plan, devised by each
state and reviewed and approved by the DOL, established targets for entered employment and retained employment for all veterans and disabled
veterans.
b. Quarterly reporting by the states: Both a Managers Report from each OneStop Career Center and a Technical Report at the state level is submitted.
In addition, each state reports through the Labor Employment Reporting
System their performance in entered employment and retained employment.
c. State assessment tool: The states provide an assessment of 50% of their
One-Stop Career Centers on an annual basis. The DOL State Director then
conducts a validation of 20% of those submissions.
Have any states lost their funding for failing to meet their obligations? Under
what circumstances would a state lose its funding?
Response: States have not lost their Jobs for Veterans State Grants as a result
of failing to meet performance goals. VETS believes that it employs the tools
necessary to achieve the desired results. These tools include:
a. Placing a temporary hold on quarterly allocations motivates non-reporting
states to take steps to ensure timely reporting.
b. When a state is identified as a high-risk grantee, VETS field staff provides
technical assistance in the form of coaching, collaboration and encouraging
state-to-state networking to help the state remedy any deficiencies.
c. We have also found that one of the best incentives is disclosure. Publicizing
performance improvements by posting the results states have attained provides an incentive to sustained performance as well as a competitive challenge to other States to bring up their levels of performance.
d. Corrective Action Plans are employed as necessary to address performance
and other deficiencies within a state. By accompanying Corrective Action
Plans with the delivery of technical assistance, VETS assures that state
grantees are given every opportunity to succeed and that employment
services for veterans are maintained at the highest possible level.
Are part-timer DVOP/LVER meeting the needs of rural and urban area veterans?
Response: Many rural areas have a half- or full-time DVOP specialist or LVER
staff person who provides services to their local veterans. In those instances
where the state determines there are not enough veteran clients to justify a

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

94
part time DVOP specialist or LVER staff person, priority services are provided
to veterans by Wagner-Peyser or other One-Stop Career Center staff.
Many One-Stop services are available to veterans via the Internet. The
CareerOneStop portal (www.CareerOneStop.org) provides an array of services
electronically, including:
Americas Service Locator (www.servicelocator.org) provides local office information on more than 22,000 local locations, including 3,500 One Stop Career
Centers;
Americas Career InfoNet (www.acinet.org) provides information on occupations, training required for those occupations, and financial assistance available; and
Career Voyages (www.CareerVoyages.gov), a career information tool providing
in depth information on high growth occupations.
Many states have utilized Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser funds
to supplement these nationally-funded electronic tools.
Veterans and transitioning military personnel can call 1877US2JOBS or
TTY: 18778995627 toll-free to locate the nearest One-Stop Career Center.
Many One-Stop Career Centers provide services over the telephone.
How does your agency track its performance measures?
Response: VETS tracks the performance measures described through the use
of the Department of Labors Labor Exchange Reporting System. This is a reporting system for those programs administered under the Wagner-Peyser Act
and the JVSG. State agencies report the employment outcomes and services
provided to job seekers.
Can you provide the Subcommittee a status of actions taken, in addition to
those mentioned in GAO Report 07594?
Response: VETS has initiated a series of actions to provide enhanced services
to veterans.
a. Initiated REALifelines, a program that provides person-to-person employment assistance for those returning veterans from the Global War on Terror who are wounded or injured.
b. Increased capacity to provide the Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops to 170,000 participants, expanded workshops at overseas
locations, and restructured the TAP Employment Workshops to emphasize
the critical areas of resume preparation, interviewing techniques, and emphasis of the services available at the One-Stop Career Centers.
c. Established, in conjunction with VA, three working groups under the MOA.
The goal of each work group is to improve the quality of employment services and suitable job placements for veterans with disabilities enrolled in
the VR&E program. Each work group has an established list of roles and
responsibilities directing their efforts.
d. Improved quality of services to veterans and Reservists under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
and Veterans Preference through more and better investigator training,
expanded veteran and employer outreach efforts, publication of new, easy
to understand, common sense USERRA regulations, and improved quality
control through establishing senior investigators at the regional offices.
f
Statement of Larry Temple, President,
National Association of State Workforce Agencies,
and Executive Director, Texas Workforce Commission

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

NASWA welcomes the opportunity to submit testimony regarding performance of

employment and training services for veterans. Our underlying goals for veterans
services at NASWA are to work to improve program performance by: building on
our partnership with USDOLVETS; improving the productivity of states DVOP
and LVER staff; promoting flexible service delivery options for states; and seeking
appropriations needed to serve veterans from ongoing conflicts. We respectfully submit the following statement regarding services for this most deserving population.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

95
Summary of NASWA Views
NASWA and USDOLVETS Partnership
NASWA and USDOLVETS continue a strong partnership to improve service
for veterans and most recently collaborated on an annual conference focused on
service for veterans. NASWA and the National Governors Association (NGA)
are honored to serve as members of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach working with USDOLVETS on
improving services.
Performance in Serving Veterans
Established performance standards for veterans employment services have
been met and continue to improve. NASWA supports highly productive DVOP
and LVER staff and the training they receive at National Veterans Training Institute.
Part-Time DVOPs and LVERs Work for Veterans
The ability to hire or assign part-time DVOPs (per P.L. 107288) has greatly
benefited veterans by allowing states to stretch their limited budgets to more
offices, covering larger areas and ultimately serving more veterans. The authority to hire half-time DVOPs or LVERs is especially important in serving veterans in small population, large geographical states.
Appropriations for VETS Programs Should Reflect Demand
Congress should appropriate an additional amount for the DVOP and LVER
programs proportionate to the increase in the number of veterans requiring
service upon return from ongoing conflicts and to adjust for inflationary pressures.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Chairman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies
(NASWA), I thank you for the opportunity to share states perspectives on the value
of employment and training services for our Nations veterans. Our foremost goal
is to serve and help veterans. To achieve this, we continue to: build on our partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS); improve the productivity of our Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER)
staff; promote flexible service delivery options for states; and seek appropriations
needed to serve veterans returning from ongoing conflicts.
The members of our Association constitute the state leaders of the publicly funded
workforce investment system vital to meeting the employment needs of veterans
through the DVOP and LVER programs. The mission of NASWA is to serve as an
advocate for state workforce programs and policies, a liaison to federal workforce
system partners, and a forum for the exchange of information and practices. Since
1973, NASWA has been a private, non-profit corporation, financed by annual dues
from member state agencies.
Our members are committed to providing the highest quality of service to our nations veterans, National Guard members and Reservists. We are focused on our
highest priority, serving recently separated veterans and disabled veterans. With
the ongoing war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a critical time to ensure
high quality workforce services are available for those who served our country in
time of war.
NASWA and USDOLVETS Partnership
NASWA and the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS) have built a strong partnership founded on the common
goal of improving services for veterans. Most recently, NASWA worked with
USDOLVETS to focus its annual conference on service to veterans including workshops on priority of service for veterans, assisting veterans transition to civilian employment and partnering with veterans service organizations. NASWA is looking
forward to working with USDOLVETS in the development of regulations to clarify
implementation of veterans priority of service in the workforce system. NASWA and
the National Governors Association (NGA) are honored to serve as members of the
Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach
working with USDOLVETS on improving services.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

96
Performance
For the latest available data on performance covering Program Year 2005 (July
1, 2005June 30, 2006), each target was reached and in most cases exceeded. The
percent of veteran job seekers employed in the first or second quarter following registration increased by two percentage points to 62 percent in program year 2005,
exceeding the target by three percentage points. The percent of veteran job seekers
still employed two quarters after initial entry into employment with a new employer
remained steady at 81 percent, matching the established target. The percent of disabled veteran job seekers employed in the first or second quarter following registration increased by one percentage point to 57 percent, two percentage points above
the target. The percent of disabled veteran job seekers still employed two quarters
after initial entry into employment with a new employer increased to 80 percent,
up one percentage point from program year 2004 and the program year 2005 target.
NASWA is committed to improving service for veterans by strengthening the productivity of DVOP and LVER staff. The Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (P.L. 109461) directs the Secretary of Labor to establish and maintain guidelines for use by states in establishing the professional
qualifications for the DVOP and LVER positions. NASWA supports this approach
to give states the latitude under guidelines to establish their own qualifications and
hiring standards. The establishment of guidelines would ensure states DVOP and
LVER representatives are properly skilled while enabling them to function within
each states structure.
NASWA supports the recently approved requirement that all DVOPs and LVERs
attend training at the National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) within three
years of being designated as a DVOP or LVER. NVTI is an invaluable resource to
provide such professional development for DVOPs and LVERs. NVTI estimates an
additional $1 million per year is required to fulfill the requirement to train all
DVOPs and LVERs in the core courses as required. NASWA supports additional appropriation at a level sufficient for NVTI training to meet the requirements to provide training for all DVOPs and LVERs as soon as possible after their hire date.
Part-Time DVOPs and LVERs Work for Veterans
The Jobs for Veterans Act (P.L. 107288) provides greater flexibility for the
VETS, states, and the DVOP and LVER staff in serving veterans. The ability to hire
or assign part-time DVOPs has greatly benefited states by allowing them to stretch
their limited resources to more offices, covering larger areas and ultimately serving
more veterans. The clarification of the definition of part-time DVOPs and LVERs
with enactment of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology
Act of 2006 to ensure they serve veterans no less than half-time is beneficial in ensuring veterans are the top priority.
Flexibility in assigning DVOP and LVER staff allows states to tailor programs to
meet the unique needs in each state and local area, while instituting standards to
ensure consistently high quality programs are available to veterans across the nation. The ability to hire or assign DVOP or LVER staff for half-time positions is especially valuable in small population, large geographic states. This allows veteran
specialists to be assigned to more offices and reduces the amount of time required
for travel in covering a large geographic area.
NASWA recommends that any future legislation preserve the states flexibility, as
provided under JVA, to determine how best to integrate LVER and DVOP programs
into state employment service delivery systems.
VETS Program Appropriations
States believe a reduction to the annual grant for any reason will impact the level
of quality service for veterans negatively. Annual appropriation levels for the DVOP
and LVER programs are inadequate. The DVOP and LVER programs should be authorized to spend annual grants for multiple years rather than a single year to
allow long-term planning for managing and staffing the programs. The funding cycle
should be changed to a program year to enable continuity in planning services for
veterans and to be consistent with other workforce development programs, including
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
Maintaining high levels of performance in serving our veterans is a shared function of states and USDOLVETS. States and USDOLVETS negotiate performance
standards and work together to meet them. A judgment made to reduce funding as
a result of performance would make the states goal of improving performance more
challenging and penalize the veteran population. Should a state be in danger of not
meeting performance measures, technical assistance should be provided by VETS to
assist in correcting any deficiencies. Maintaining high levels of performance is the
top priority of every state.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

97
State allocations under the DVOP and LVER programs have increased by approximately $3.9 million in eight years. This amount represents on average only about
a one years increase due to inflation. Congress should appropriate an additional
amount for the DVOP and LVER programs proportionate to the increase in the
number of veterans requiring service upon return from ongoing conflicts and to inflation every year. Further, the veterans workforce investment program (VWIP), the
program dedicated to training for veterans, has been flat-funded for over 5 years.
Last years VWIP appropriation of only $7.5 million serves limited areas in only 12
states.
State allocations are based on the states population of veterans seeking employment in the state. Though small state veterans populations may not be as large as
large population states, small states must make the same accommodations to serve
veterans throughout a large and diverse area. Inevitably small population states require additional funds throughout the year to maintain the service levels established in their annual plans. NASWA appreciates the availability of contingency
funding, including exigency and 5th quarter funding, but believe veterans would be
better served if adequate allocations are provided at the beginning of a funding
cycle. NASWA recognizes the large number of veterans in heavily populated states
requires a commensurate number of workforce system staff to provide high quality
services. NASWA supports minimum funding levels adequate for small states to ensure they can maintain high quality services too. Ultimately, an increase in Congressional appropriation for the DVOP and LVER programs would help to alleviate
this issue.
The Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) requires states to submit to the Secretary of
Labor, a plan that describes the manner in which states shall furnish employment,
training, and placement services required under this chapter for the program year.
NASWA members believe the annual plan required by the Jobs for Veterans Act
will be greatly improved by moving the funding for these programs from a fiscal
year to a program year funding cycle.
By transitioning funding to a program year (July 1 to June 30) and aligning it
with most other employment and training programs, the plans state workforce agencies submit to USDOL Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) will reflect future program year services based on actual outlays. Funding on a program
year supports integrating VETS-funded programs into WIA one-stop career center
systems and planning and performing on the same cycle as other one-stop partners.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues.
f

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Statement of Justin Brown, Legislative Associate,

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
(VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for your invitation to submit
testimony on the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local
Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER).
The men and women of our military are leaving our military in large numbers.
The cause for their departure is often the prospect of one more deployment for an
already battle weary troop. Though these men and women have served honorably,
this does not mean they are ready to enter the civilian workforce, yet the core of
positive transition is stable employment or education opportunities.
A November 5th Military.com poll illustrates the need for greater assistance for
recently departed service members. Of 4,442 military or veteran respondents;
eighty-one percent of transitioning military personnel surveyed revealed that they
do not feel fully prepared to enter the job market. Of those who feel unprepared:
seventy-two percent of respondents feel unprepared to negotiate salary and benefits,
seventy-six percent report inabilities to effectively translate their military skills to
civilian terms, and fifty-seven percent are unsure of how to network professionally.
While our service members may possess the skills to perform the job and the discipline to see work through to completion, they lack the confidence and the knowledge to market their own strengths.
The survey also included 287 recruiters and hiring managers from small- to largesize businesses which demonstrated a need for increased employer outreach and
education. The survey results of this population stated that sixty percent of hiring
managers and recruiters reported favorable attitudes toward employing veterans,
yet many face difficulties recruiting and hiring from this talent pool. Sixty-one percent reveal they do not have a complete understanding of the qualifications ex-serv-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

98
icemembers offer. Sixty-four percent feel that veterans need additional assistance to
make a successful transition into the civilian job-seeking market, with twenty-seven
percent citing the need for stronger interviewing skills. Fifty-three percent of employers spend two percent or less of their recruitment advertising budget on targeted military hiring. Due to employers lack of understanding and undervaluing
veterans as employees many do not seek out these extraordinary Americans.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists
According to the Department of Labor (DOL), Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists provide intensive services to meet the employment needs
of disabled veterans and other eligible veterans, with the maximum emphasis directed toward serving those who are economically or educationally disadvantaged,
including homeless veterans, and veterans with barriers to employment. DVOP specialists are actively involved in outreach efforts to increase program participation
among those with the greatest barriers to employment which may include but
should not be limited to: outplacement in Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program offices; DVA Medical Centers;
routine site visits to Veterans Service Organization meetings; Native American
Trust Territories; Military installations; and, other areas of known concentrations
of veterans or transitioning service members. The case management approach,
taught by the National Veterans Training Institute, is generally accepted as the
method to use when providing vocational guidance or related services to eligible veterans identified as needing intensive services.
Local Veterans Employment Representatives
According to DOL, Local Veterans Employment Representatives conduct outreach
to employers and engage in advocacy efforts with hiring executives to increase employment opportunities for veterans, encourage the hiring of disabled veterans, and
generally assist veterans to gain and retain employment. LVER staff conduct seminars for employers and job search workshops for veterans seeking employment, and
facilitate priority of service in regard to employment, training, and placement services furnished to veterans by all staff of the employment service delivery system.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

VETS
The mission statement for VETS is to provide veterans and transitioning service
members with the resources and services to succeed in the 21st century workforce
by maximizing their employment opportunities, protecting their employment rights
and meeting labor-market demands with qualified veterans today.
As Per the request of this Subcommittee, we have addressed the following four
questions.
1. Do you believe DOL is properly implementing the DVOP/LVER programs
with the states?
The VFW believes the Department of Labor has little oversight, and no useful
performance measures for the quality of implementation or success of the programs
in any particular state. The Jobs for Veterans Act, Public Law (P.L.) 107288, eliminated the requirement for DOL to review all workforce centers annually which
greatly reduced Federal oversight of these programs that already lack in performance measures. Also, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) cut funds allocated for oversight and created policy that allowed
for only 10 percent of one-stop centers to be reviewed. In brief, the DVOP/LVER programs have largely been ceded to the authority of the states with exception to funding. The VFW strongly discourages the movement toward funding with no accountability. The VFW believes that the DOL needs oversight; however, we need to create
measures that allow proper oversight and evaluation of DOL. Until this occurs the
VFW believes veterans will continue to have programs that may, or may not, work.
Currently there is no way of knowing that these programs are, or are not, effective
regardless of what state they are in.
2. Under what circumstances should states lose their funding for failing to
meet their obligations?
Until DOL is held accountable for their actions, the VFW believes that DOL will
have a hard time justifying the cutting of a particular states funding. The VFW believes that a complete review of standards needs to be conducted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has cited multiple occurrences in which DOL has
not conducted necessary oversight. One example is that the DOL has not conducted

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

99
an impact evaluation, as required under Workforce Investment Act, to assess the effectiveness of the one-stop services in which LVERs and DVOPs operate. The VFW
believes the impact study needs to be conducted as does an impact survey of the
effectiveness of the DVOP and LVER program. When the study is finished DOL and
the VA need to create performance measures that hold the states accountable.
Assuming legitimate performance standards were created, the VFW would not
support any cuts in the overall funding of the program. However, the VFW would
support funds being redirected if individual states were not performing or were failing to meet necessary standards of assisting veterans.
The VFW believes that states ought not to misuse or waste funding that is intended to help veterans find employment. If this does occur, VFW supports the
funds being redirected to programs that have proven effective in creating opportunities for veterans. However, there must be some mechanism for states that lose funding to be able to receive the funding should they make changes beneficial for the
purpose of implementing a veteran employment program that will meet the minimum standards as outlined by DOL. The bottom line is the individual states need
incentive to keep veterans employment programs providing a quality service.
3. Are part-time DVOPs/LVERs meeting the needs of rural and urban area
veterans?
The VFWs experience has been that Veterans Affairs (VA) Employment Coordinators, DVOPS, and LVERS, primarily serve veterans in close proximity to their physical location of employment offices, regardless of whether they are full-time or parttime DVOPs or LVERs. In many cases, the VFW has been told that close proximity
between a veteran and those servicing the veteran, increases the likelihood of employment due to the establishment of personal relationships between the DVOP/
LVER and the veteran. This offers a form of favoritism that could further decrease
a rural veterans chance of employment.
The VFW advocates for the necessity of a qualitative study to be conducted in
every state to assess the necessity of outreach employment services for rural veterans. Such a study would give the individual states information that would better
assist them in resource utilization. Overall the rural veteran population stands at
around twenty-three percent. However, there is a great deal of information that we
do not know in regards to that demographic. Also, are the military members that
joined from a rural location returning to the same locale, or are they relocating to
metropolises? To answer these questions as a whole would likely create a false depiction of the realities on the ground; which is why the studies should be conducted
on a state by state basis, in order to assure vast amounts of veterans are not slipping through the cracks.
4. What is your organizations position on how the DOL tracks its performance measures?
According to GAO reports, dating back to 1999, DOL/VETS have completed no
oversight that actually assesses the benefit of the LVER/DVOP programs. In his recent testimony before the Committee, the Assistant Secretary of VETS, stated the
enactment of the Jobs for Veterans Act, P.L. 107288, in November 2002 has resulted in significant improvements in the provision of employment services to veterans and is showing a positive impact on the employment outcomes of veterans.
The VFW wonders what these positive impacts are, and how are we, and Congress,
supposed to substantiate such claims? The VFW would like to see a program that
performs for veterans, and is not just titled as a veterans program. The lack of
meaningful oversight, and impact studies, has left the DOL to its own devices for
nearly a decade. While the VFW does not question the intentions of any parties, we
also wish to see a veterans program do what it is supposed to do. Without such
measures and studies, no entity, not even the DOL, can substantiate that the programs are indeed working as planned. The VFWs purpose in highlighting these
issues is the worry that the program may not be working. If this is indeed the case
we would be able to make changes if we knew what the problems were. However,
the information available lacks quantitative data, and only leaves all entities, including DOL, with more questions, and more assumptions.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Other Areas of Concern to the VFW

The VFW strongly believes that interagency cooperation between DOL/VETS and
the VA needs to increase at all levels. In order for a uniform and coherent employment and training program to be established, it will require long-term goals on the
national, state, and local level. The VFW believes that it is the responsibility of DOL
and VA to establish such a program that will provide comprehensive measures of
performance. The fact that the organizations have failed to implement such meas-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

100
ures leads the VFW to believe that the programs may not be performing as is being
testified to Congress. However, this is no reason to impede the creation of such
measures. Without comprehensive measures, DOL/VETS, and the VA cannot assess
or enhance their service to our nations veterans.
Information sharing is crucial for VA and DOL/VETS to increase interagency cooperation. DOL/VETS ought to provide the VA with employment information, so
that they can be aware of the employment status of veterans who are receiving vocational rehabilitation. The VA ought to provide DOL/VETS with information in regards to the veterans disabilities. This would make the DVOPs and LVERs more
capable of finding suitable employment, or making the proper accommodations for
the veteran, to increase successful placement both for the employer and the veteran
employee. However, this information need only be provided for these purposes and
clear criteria needs to be drawn up by DOL/VETS, and the VA, for the implementation of such. Clearly, there would be personal information that would not be necessary for employment, and much of the information sharing would be at the discretion of the veteran.
According to Veterans Affairs, tonight there will be 1,500 veterans from OEF/OIF
walking the streets. In our opinion, both DOL/VETS, and VA, need to step it up,
collaborate, and be innovative in their efforts. America and its veterans need a
change in the way their veteran employment programs are being managed; this is
not to say there are not individuals working very hard to ensure the best for our
men and women who have traded their boots for sneakers. We would like to thank
those men and women. However, there needs to be increased accountability, and
measures that actually measure the causative effect DVOPs and LVERs are having
on employment. If the Military.com poll is any indicator, employers and veterans
either do not know about the services available to them, or they are not sufficient.
Chairwoman Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the committee, on
behalf of the VFW, I would like to thank you for allowing us to submit testimony
on this very important issue. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
f
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 30, 2007
Ronald F. Chamrin
Assistant Director
Economic Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Chamrin:

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Please review and respond to the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on November 30, 2007. These questions are in reference to our House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
VETS DVOP/LVER Program on October 25, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting
changes for material for all full committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore,
it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter
size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa
Torres by fax at (202) 2252034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225
3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

101
American Legion
Washington, DC.
November 28, 2007
Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chair
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 205156335
Dear Chair Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the Subcommittee
hearing on VETS DVOP/LVER Program on October 15, 2007. I am pleased to respond to your specific question concerning that hearing:
In your testimony you state that DVOP/LVER staff receives training with in the
first 3 years, yet you suggest for this training to be mandated with in the 1st year.
Can you submit your recommendation for the record?
The American Legion is proud to list its recommendations for improving veterans
employment by training Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialists
and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER).

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Training for DVOPs/LVERs under state jurisdiction

The National Veterans Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI) provides training to Federal and State Government employment service providers in
competency based training courses. P.L. 109461 stipulates that newly hired
DVOPs/LVERs must attend the NVTI to be trained for their position within 3 years
of hiring.
NVTI has provided several thousand training sessions for State Employment Security Agency staff, Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) staff, DOD
staff, and Department of Veterans Affairs (VAs) Vocational Rehabilitation staff.
NVTI provides standardized training for veterans advocates providing employment
and training services. The positive impact on the quality of services provides veterans with well-trained vocational specialists across the country.
Unfortunately, newly hired individuals can retain their position for 2.5 years before they are required to begin training to ensure that graduation is within the 3year hiring period. Newly-hired employment specialists, without the benefit of NVTI
training, may be ill-prepared to properly assist veterans seeking meaningful employment or facing significant barriers to employment.
To close this loophole, The American Legion recommends that newly-hired
DVOPs/LVERs personnel must be trained at NVTI within the first year of employment and supports that all untrained DVOP/LVER staff within 3 years of hiring at
the time of enactment of new legislation must be trained within 1 year.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

102

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

39467A.201

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

(Government Printing Office, [DOCID: f:publ461.109] [[Page 120 STAT. 3403]]

Public Law 109461 109th Congress, Approved December 22, 2006. LEGISLATIVE
HISTORYS. 3421 (H.R. 5815))
The American Legion reaffirms continued support of full funding of the National
Veterans Training Institute and advocate full funding and staffing for the Veterans
Employment and Training Service and its effective programs.
Thank you once again for all of the courtesies provided by you and your capable
staff. The American Legion welcomes the opportunity to work with you and your
colleagues on many issues facing veterans and their families throughout this Congress.
Sincerely,
Ron Chamrin, Assistant Director
National Economic Commission

103
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 30, 2007
Richard Daley
Associate Legislation Director
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Daley:
Please review and respond to the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on November 30, 2007. These questions are in reference to our House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
VETS DVOP/LVER Program on October 25, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting
changes for material for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore,
it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter
size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa
Torres by fax at (202) 2252034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225
3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman

Paralyzed Veterans of America

Washington, DC.
November 16, 2007
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for the opportunity to address questions raised by my testimony on
October 25, 2007 before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. I have included my responses and would be happy to answer any additional questions you
or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Sincerely,
Richard Daley
Associate Legislation Director
Questions From The House Committee On Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing October 25, 2007
Rich Daley
Paralyzed Veterans of America

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Question 1: You state that your members and other individuals who suffer from
similar injuries or diseases do not receive proper consideration for employment
when applying for a job. What can be done so that they do receive proper consideration?
Answer: The employer must be informed that employing a veteran with a disability will not cost any additional expense over the candidate without a disability.
Many employers have a preconceived idea that hiring disabled workers may affect
their cost for employees insurance or their workmans compensation premiums. Traditionally the disabled employee does not have an effect on these costs.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

104
Some employers may have the idea that the disabled worker may not be as dependable with getting to work, or may take more time off from work because of their
disability. Disabled workers are as reliable or in many cases have a better attendance record than nondisabled.
The role of educating the employer is the job for the local Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans Employment Representative
(LVER). Part of their responsibility is to perform outreach in their community or
geographic territory and meet with the employers. By networking with the employers the DVOP can learn specific skills that an employer needs and the training that
would be required by the disabled veteran. The DVOP must be out selling the potential of hiring the disabled veteran. Every placement takes much more individual
hands on customizing, than a typical placement of a nondisabled worker. After the
placement of the disabled veteran the local veterans employment representative
may follow up for six to twelve months to insure the success of the placement. If
there is not adequate funding for the DVOP, and LEVR, the outside travel and networking is usually eliminated resulting in an inside office worker.
Question 2: Is there sufficient funding for VETS?
a. What do you consider an appropriate funding level for VETS?
Answer: In preparing my testimony the information that I used confirmed that
DOLs last increase for VETS was in the FY 2003 budget. Any additional funds in
yearly budgets since that date have been insignificant. It would be difficult to conduct any program today with a budget from 2003. The work load for the local veterans employment representatives has increased with the OEF/OIF veterans returning home, many looking for their first full time employment opportunity.
Without sufficient funding some states have resorted to half time funding for the
DVOP and LVER positions. State employees working in this situation can find their
work load evolve into a 60/40% division, with the veterans work receiving the 40%,
since the work load of the regular employment workforce will be greater. In the half
time veterans representatives position, the necessary paper work will be completed,
but the equally important outreach in the community may be eliminated.
A community may not have the population that would require a full time veterans
representative. Employment specialists that have years of experience, agree that it
is better to have the veterans representative travel in from another office one or two
days a week keeping their focus on veterans employment, rather than dividing the
day by state worker part time, veterans representative part time.
Question 3: You state that if a state falls short then the Director for Veterans
Employment and Training (DVET) should provide more oversight. What type of
oversight should the DVET provide to the state?
Answer: The DOLVETS program should be adequately funded to a level similar
to FY 2003. The DVET must have the budget to travel throughout their assigned
area to work with the DVOPs and LVERS. They must have the latest training to
share with the state employment worker.
The DVET could encourage the state to conduct veterans job fairs. Currently
some states conduct veterans job fairs each year at multiple locations throughout
the state. Some states that have conducted aggressive hire vets campaigns may
find them discontinued with the change of a Governor and his Executive Branch.
The DVET could encourage the inactive state to become more active perhaps enlisting the resources of the DOL staff in Washington.
At a recent veterans job fair in Tampa, Florida (Nov. 14, 2007) that was coordinated by the state employment services and Military Officers Association of America
(MOAA), over 550 veterans had the opportunity to talk with approximately 40 employers that were represented. Many of the attending veterans scheduled future
interviews and perhaps received an employment offer.
The DVET should encourage the DVOP specialists to become involved with the
disabled veteran early in the process. In some locations the DVO will start visiting
the veteran while they are in the VA facility to discuss employment opportunities
and the required rehabilitation and training needed to perform those fields. This
helps to focus the veteran on employment and returning to civilian life after their
rehabilitation.

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

105
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 30, 2007
Rick Weidman
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs
Vietnam Veterans of America
8605 Cameron Street, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Weidman:
Please review and respond to the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on November 30, 2007. These questions are in reference to our House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
VETS DVOP/LVER Program on October 25, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting
changes for material for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore,
it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter
size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman

Questions from the House Committee on Veterans Affairs

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on VETS DVOP/LVER Program
October 25, 2007
1. If the Government Accountability Office (GAO) were to revisit the study done
on VETS. What recommendations would you make for a second report?
2. What should be the proper funding level for VETS?
3. You state that ETA is derelict in the promulgation of regulations implement
the law. Can you give us examples of where ETS is derelict?
4. Do you agree with the revision of the duties for Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program (DVOP) and Local Veteran Employment Representative (LVER) staff?
[THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM MR.
WEIDMAN.]
f
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 30, 2007
Honorable Charles S. Ciccolella
Assistant Secretary
Veterans Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Dear Secretary Ciccolella:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

106
size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa
Torres by fax at (202) 2252034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225
3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Questions from the House Committee on Veterans Affairs

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on VETS DVOP/LVER Program
October 25, 2007
1. What is the appropriate funding level for VETS?
Response: The appropriate funding level for the Veterans Employment Training
Service (VETS) allows the agency to carryout its statutorily mandated functions,
while emphasizing the highest priority programs. Since the beginning of the Global
War on Terror, VETS has placed a priority on the transition to civilian employment
for separating servicemembers and on the provision of employment services for the
severely injured and wounded. As a result, the Agency has emphasized the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and the REALifelines (RLL) program. For those veterans that do not fall within the TAP or RLL programs services, we believe that
the increased emphasis on priority of service for veterans in the One-Stop Career
Centers, in conjunction with the existing Disabled Veterans Outreach Programs
(DVOP) and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) programs, allows
the states to provide employment services to those veterans. The funding level requested in the Presidents FY2008 budget is appropriate to fund these priorities as
well as all statutory mandates.
2. According to a GAO study on Veterans Employment and Training Service, DOL has no method of gauging the extent to which priority of service for veterans has been implemented in various employment programs, despite Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) requirement that DOL include this information in its annual report to Congress. Do you agree
with this claim?
a. Why have you not implemented this requirement?
Response: The Department of Labor (DOL) does not agree with this claim. DOL
has been using three methods for assessing priority of service. The first is measuring the participation rate for veterans in each of the principal DOL employment
and training programs, as well as the overall participation rate of veterans across
all these programs. This overall program participation rate is higher than veterans
rates of representation in the civilian labor force. This suggests that the veterans
priority has led to high participation. This measurement is included in VETS Annual Report to Congress.
The second method relates to the monitoring procedures currently applied by
VETS and by the Departments Employment and Training Administration (ETA).
VETS procedures include the analysis of quarterly monitoring reports for every
state, the submission of annual self-assessments by each State Workforce Agency
(SWA), and program monitoring reviews at selected One-Stop Career Centers each
year. The ETA procedures include periodic reviews at the state and local level. Both
agencies monitor priority of service and, in response to a prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, VETS and ETA recently piloted joint monitoring reviews
of the SWAs in five states. VETS and ETA found that this produced greater consistency and broader coverage in the monitoring of priority of service.
VETS and ETA recently implemented a third approach to assessing priority of
service, by awarding a contract to provide an analysis of existing approaches to implementing priority of service in DOL programs and to explore strategies for evaluating the implementation of priority of service in greater depth.
We believe the combination of these methodologies and the information that will
be produced by them will provide a robust and reliable approach for assessing priority of service.
Looking ahead, ETA is also proposing an integrated reporting system called
WISPR. In its proposed format, WISPR will collect information on registrants for
DVOP LVER and the Wagner Peyser Employment Service programs, at a minimum.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

107
The latter serves approximately 13 million individuals per year. It should be noted
that this data is not currently being collected, but by doing so, the Department of
Labor will be able to analyze the proportion of Veterans who register and go on to
receive a service versus the proportion of Non-Veterans who register and go on to
receive a service. If approved, this data will add yet another dimension to DOLs
ability to gauge priority of service.
a. Why have you not implemented this requirement?

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

Response: DOL implemented the priority of service requirement shortly after the
priority of service provision was enacted in the Jobs for Veterans Act late in 2002.
Early in 2003, DOL issued general policy guidance on priority of service and, later
in 2003, DOL issued specific policy guidance for each major employment and training program.
With the enactment of Public Law 109461 late in 2006, the Secretary of Labor
is required to publish regulations on priority of service by December 2008. A work
group has been convened and draft regulations are currently under development.
DOL is confident that the resulting regulations will embody the policy guidance required to achieve full implementation of priority of service and will be accompanied
by improved sources of information for assessing its implementation.
3. How are DOLVETS funded? Explain the Wagner-Peyser Act and how
that applies to funding DVOP/LVER?
Response: Amounts appropriated to VETS for the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
are funded indirectly from the federal unemployment tax. As required by the Jobs
for Veterans Act of 2002, allocations to the states are based upon the number of
veterans seeking employment in that state as a percentage of veterans seeking employment in all states.
The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 laid the ground work for employment services for
Americas job seekers, which have benefited veterans over the last seventy-five
years. The Wagner-Peyser Act funds also derive from the federal unemployment tax
and are allotted to State Workforce Agencies by the Employment and Training Administration using a formula that takes into account State Workforce Population Estimates and local area unemployment statistics.
In the workforce system, the public labor exchange is operated as part of the OneStop Career Center system. The Jobs for Veterans State Grants are one of several
state grant programs that provide employment related services, including WagnerPeyser and Workforce Investment Act formula grants. One-Stop partners, including
staff funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act, provide priority of service to veterans.
DVOP specialists and LVER staff assist the One-Stop Career Center to serve veterans, but do not supplant the offices general responsibility to provide employment
and training-related services to all job seekers, including veterans. In fact, the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service program served over 1,151,000 veterans and eligible
persons over the past year, about nine percent of the total participants served. The
DVOP Program provides case-management and intensive services to veterans most
in need of services or those veterans with barriers to employment. In partnership
with Wagner-Peyser funded staff, LVER staff serve veterans and help to meet the
workforce needs of the business community though outreach and field visitation.
4. How many positions outside of the central office are lost each year due
to inflation of salaries and stagnant funding of state grants?
Response: The Jobs for Veterans State Grant funds DVOP and LVER positions
in the State Workforce Agencies. It does not fund federal VETS positions at the national, regional, or state levels. A comparison of DVOP specialists and LVER staffing was drawn between the position levels in fiscal year FY 2007 and FY 2003, the
year before the Jobs for Veterans State Grants were implemented. Based upon the
funding, the states were able to support 271 fewer positions funded in FY 2007 than
in FY 2003.
5. If DOLVETS could receive full funding at the full authorized levels,
what would that equate to?
Response: The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 does not establish an authorization
for DVOP and LVER positions. DOL submits a request for the amount estimated
to be necessary to support VETS activities and states provide an estimate of the
number of veterans employment representatives and services that the states can
support based upon their estimated allocation.
Two VETS programs currently have authorized levels: the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) at $50 million, and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) that has a reservation of no less than $7.3 million.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

108
6. The VWIP program is highly successful in that the average staff member
has a higher level of education, training, and specialized tools to assist
veterans. How much would it require funding a VWIP in each state or
in those with high concentrations of veterans?
Response: To provide a Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) award
in each state, it would cost approximately $26 million. This estimate is by derived
by assuming that the current average VWIP grant amount ($500,000) is awarded
to each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
7. What is the average budget for a DVOP/LVER to conduct outreach or
to travel to visit veterans outside their offices?
Response: The design of the Jobs for Veterans State Grants provides states with
the flexibility to operate in a manner they deem appropriate to best serve the veteran population and in a manner that maximizes their respective resources, in accordance with the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002. This highly evolved system of operation provides the best possible use of resource allocation for each state considering
each unique economic situation, the needs of their veterans population and the resources available to provide services at an optimal level.
Outreach is conducted by LVER staff members for the purpose of establishing employer relationships that are conducive to the creation of job opportunities for veterans, and to market the well trained and skilled labor pool of veterans. Outreach
to the community, employers and businesses, includes encouraging employers to
consider veterans as a meritorious labor source on a priority basis.
Without taking into consideration each states methodology for developing such
travel projections, VETS estimates that on a national level, the average projection
for DVOP/LVER staff to conduct outreach is $1,400.
8. In regards to state imposition of probationary periods, how many
DVOP/LVERs do not receive training within the first year?
Response: Pursuant to Public Law (Pub.L.) 109461, Jobs for Veterans State
Grantees were required to provide information in their FY 2008 annual modification
requests identifying the dates DVOP specialists and LVER staff were appointed and
received core training through the National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI). We
have defined core training as the Labor and Employment Specialist (LES) course
and Case Management course for DVOP specialists, and LES and Promoting Partnerships in Employment course for LVER staff. DVOP specialists and LVER staff
appointed since January 1, 2006, are required to complete this core training within
three years of the date of appointment. Monitoring this required training is an area
of special interest that our State Directors of Veterans Employment and Training
review in state implementation plans and during State Workforce Agency assessments.
Based upon the most recent quarterly reports from the states, 433 out of 609
DVOP and LVER staff appointed since January 1, 2006, have not completed NVTI
training. Since the requirement is that they complete training within the first three
years of employment, we have not asked the states to provide information on attendance at training in the first year.
9. What are the figures for referrals that states receive from the VA to
DVOP/LVER programs for placement?
Response: In FY 2006, the VAs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
(VR&E) referred 6,658 individuals. Of that number, 5,801 were registered in the
SWA systems, and there was a resulting entered employment rate of 87%. The FY
2007 figures are still being compiled.
Following a meeting with the committees staff, a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed between VAs VR&E Service and VETS. This has led to a
new level of collaboration and cooperation between VETS and VR&E. The MOA established three working groups who are charged with developing performance measures, curriculum development and joint training, and data collection and analysis.
The working groups have developed a demonstration project to be implemented at
eight mutually agreeable sites to implement best practices/standardized procedures
that outline/evaluate the proposed model for collaboration. The project start date is
scheduled for January 28, 2008.
10. Which states are doing a good job in limiting their overheads and providing resources?
Response: Under the governing regulations (29 CFR part 97) and OMB circulars
(A102 and A87) state workforce agencies develop cost allocation plans consistent
with accepted accounting practices. They can develop an indirect cost rate proposal
to cover their centralized costs and other administrative costs that benefit all pro-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

109
grams or develop a cost allocation plan that lays out their costing methodology.
These plans are subject to approval by either the relevant Federal agency providing
the most Federal funds to a state or a DOL cost negotiator from the Departments
Division of Cost Determination. Each state can account for different items of cost
such as travel, computer equipment and telephones as either direct or indirect, and
as either program or overhead, costs depending on the nature of the expense.
States incorporate their approved rates and cost allocation plans into their Jobs
for Veterans State Grant proposals. VETS field staff reviews their plans and assists
them to successfully achieve their plans and stay within approved cost items.
Attachment 1 indicates the percentage of grant funds utilized by each state for
administration and other expenses compared to the percentage of funds supporting
salaries, benefits, and travel. VETS understands the complexity of this issue and
is willing to brief you and your staff further.
Attachment 1
Jobs for Veterans State Grants
Administrative Cost Overview
(DATA

OBTAINED FROM

% of Grant Funds
Supporting Personnel
Salaries, Benefits, Travel

% of Grant Funds for

Administration and Other
Expenses

82.05%

17.95%

79.87%

20.13%

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

State

VerDate Aug 31 2005

FY2007 ANNUAL FUNDING MODIFICATION SF 424A)

75.21%

24.79%

72.41%

27.59%

70.35%

29.65%

80.91%

19.09%

70.31%

29.69%

77.49%

22.51%

72.91%

27.09%

51.90%

48.10%

74.28%

25.72%

75.17%

24.83%

70.54%

29.46%

73.84%

26.16%

70.95%

29.05%

78.48%

21.52%

67.81%

32.19%

68.96%

31.04%

84.40%

15.60%

74.20%

25.80%

76.37%

23.63%

73.20%

26.80%

74.84%

25.16%

76.54%

23.46%

72.74%

27.26%

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

110
% of Grant Funds
Supporting Personnel
Salaries, Benefits, Travel

% of Grant Funds for

Administration and Other
Expenses

65.16%

34.84%

66.84%

33.16%

75.87%

24.13%

71.12%

28.88%

63.23%

36.77%

80.57%

19.43%

78.62%

21.38%

74.97%

25.03%

69.61%

30.39%

76.78%

23.22%

67.42%

32.58%

73.73%

26.27%

76.08%

23.92%

81.60%

18.40%

87.48%

12.52%

57.92%

42.08%

75.97%

24.03%

59.93%

40.07%

72.93%

27.07%

72.82%

27.18%

75.57%

24.43%

73.71%

26.29%

90.54%

9.46%

69.25%

30.75%

67.72%

32.28%

68.92%

31.08%

70.38%

29.62%

73.74%

State

26.26%

National Average:

26.71%

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

11. Is a follow up program implemented by the DOL feasible?

Response: Follow-up on program exiters is a key component of all the veterans
employment programs for which VETS is responsible, but the way in which followup is implemented varies according to each programs service delivery approach.
In the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), the Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) and the REALifelines (RLL) Program, follow-up
is implemented for two purposes: to provide guidance, encouragement and support
to job seeking veterans during and after program participation; and, to determine
whether these veterans achieved the desired outcomes of entry to employment and
retention in employment.
In the Jobs for Veterans State Grants, personal follow-up is implemented solely
to guide, encourage and support the job seeking veterans during and after program
participation. Their outcomes are determined through other channels. An example

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

111
of this type of follow-up occurs as part of the intensive services provided by DVOP
specialists. Intensive services involve the provision of various types of assistance
during program participation, as well as during the early stages of entry to employment and retention in employment. However, the outcomes are determined based
on the collection of wage record data, as discussed in the response to the following
question.
12. Does using wage record data a good enough measure outcomes?
Response: DOL is confident that wage record data represent the best available
source of information on the outcomes of veterans for the purpose of program reporting. The Congress has indicated its preference for reporting program outcomes that
are based on wage record data in both the Workforce Investment Act (Section 136)
and the Jobs for Veterans Act (38 U.S.C. 4102A(f)(2)(A)).
The data source is further enhanced by the Wage Record Interchange System
(WRIS) which has been developed to facilitate the interstate exchange of wage data
between participating states for the purpose of assessing and reporting on state and
local performance. The primary benefit is that DOL and it grantees get a more robust picture of the effectiveness of their programs by tracking individuals who may
get served in one state but find employment in another. VETS confidence in the
accuracy of wage record data is reinforced by the agencys own experience reporting
outcomes for the DVOP/LVER program before the implementation of wage record
data collection. Under the prior approach, reported outcomes were much lower overall and the variation in reported outcomes among states was much greater.
However, VETS does not place exclusive reliance on reported program outcomes
from wage record data in managing and assessing the DVOP/LVER program. Rather, VETS relies on multiple lines of evidence and significantly supplements reported
program outcomes by emphasizing continuous improvement through the annual performance cycle, which consists of planning, monitoring and technical assistance, and
the independent perspectives afforded by studies and evaluations conducted under
contract by experts in various fields.
13. How much would it cost to make part time DVOPs full time?
Response: It would take about $5 million to convert the current 101 half-time
DVOP specialists the states planned to support in FY 2008 to full-time status. However, such a move would also run counter to the basis of the funding formula. Further, the authorizing legislation allows states the flexibility to appoint part-time
staff.
14. How many referrals does the DOL receive from VA for placement of
staff in DVOP/LVER?
Response: In FY 2006, the VAs VR&E referred 6,658 individuals. Of that number, 5,801 were registered in the SWA systems, and there was a resulting entered
employment rate of 87%. The FY 2007 figures are still being compiled. Please see
the response to question nine for additional information.
15. The Chairwoman requests the DOL to provide information on which
states are recognized as having successful DVOP/LVER programs.
Response: Employment and employment retention rates are measured against
the negotiated measures of each outcome for veterans, disabled veterans,
transitioning servicemembers, and recently separated servicemembers. In the near
future, average earnings may be included in the measured outcomes for veterans.
These outcomes are measured on a rolling four-quarter basis, since employment retention and wage measurements are calculated over a period of time following their
last service.
Attachment 1 indicates the results of measures reported through the One-Stop
Career Center system which includes the combined integrated efforts of all State
Workforce Agency staff including the DVOP specialist, LVER and Wagner-Peyser
Program staff.
16. Provide information to the Subcommittee on how many DVOP/LVER receive training with in the first year, state by state.
Response: As discussed in the response to Question #8, VETS has been tracking
the DVOP specialists and LVER staff appointed or assigned since January 1, 2006,
to ensure that they complete training within the first three years of service. We do
not have data on the number of state employees who completed training in their
first year, but our most recent report shows that a total of 176 staff hired after January 1, 2006, have satisfactorily completed NVTI training within the first 21
months since the law took effect. Attachment 2 shows a count of the courses completed between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2007.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

112
One-Stop Performance Outcomes By State Source:
ETA 9002 D Qtr Ending June 30, 2007
(Reported as of 10182007)
Veteran
EER*

Veteran
ERR**

Disabled
Veteran EER*

Disabled
Veteran ERR**

Alabama

61%

80%

57%

78%

Alaska

51%

73%

45%

69%

Arizona

51%

76%

46%

74%

Arkansas

67%

79%

63%

79%

California

52%

78%

49%

78%

Colorado

62%

81%

59%

81%

Connecticut

59%

76%

49%

76%

Delaware

53%

73%

47%

78%

District of Columbia

61%

75%

52%

78%

Florida

59%

79%

54%

78%

Georgia

63%

78%

59%

77%

Hawaii

46%

75%

45%

71%

Idaho

68%

79%

61%

77%

Illinois

62%

83%

57%

82%

Indiana

66%

83%

59%

83%

Iowa

68%

83%

61%

81%

Kansas

71%

84%

69%

85%

Kentucky

65%

79%

58%

77%

Louisiana

24%

67%

25%

64%

Maine

59%

83%

53%

83%

Maryland

63%

82%

60%

82%

Massachusetts

54%

73%

46%

72%

Michigan

53%

74%

47%

70%

Minnesota

56%

82%

51%

80%

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

State

VerDate Aug 31 2005

Mississippi

54%

25%

46%

24%

Missouri

62%

77%

55%

77%

Montana

69%

83%

67%

82%

Nebraska

62%

82%

57%

81%

Nevada

71%

80%

67%

80%

New Hampshire

63%

74%

58%

73%

New Jersey

56%

79%

47%

76%

New Mexico

54%

74%

51%

75%

New York

57%

80%

55%

79%

North Carolina

56%

75%

53%

75%

North Dakota

68%

86%

51%

84%

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

113
One-Stop Performance Outcomes By State Source:
ETA 9002 D Qtr Ending June 30, 2007Continued
Veteran
EER*

Veteran
ERR**

Disabled
Veteran EER*

Disabled
Veteran ERR**

Ohio

40%

82%

38%

81%

Oklahoma

71%

84%

68%

82%

Oregon

62%

84%

51%

80%

Pennsylvania

61%

83%

54%

81%

Puerto Rico

33%

23%

Rhode Island

58%

81%

47%

67%

South Carolina

69%

81%

65%

80%

South Dakota

63%

83%

51%

80%

Tennessee

59%

76%

57%

76%

Texas

66%

84%

62%

84%

Utah

71%

86%

66%

86%

Vermont

61%

73%

50%

79%

Virginia

68%

83%

65%

80%

Virgin Islands

44%

64%

20%

Washington

70%

84%

64%

85%

West Virginia

65%

82%

56%

80%

Wisconsin

64%

86%

61%

86%

State

Wyoming

62%

77%

59%

75%

National Average

59%

79%

55%

78%

* EER = Entered Employment Rate

** ERR = Employment Retention Rate

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING

VerDate Aug 31 2005

23:57 Oct 09, 2008

Jkt 039467

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 6604

Sfmt 6011

E:\HR\OC\A467A.XXX

A467A

Contract Bundling Oversight: Hearing
100% (1)
Contract Bundling Oversight: Hearing
68 pages
Veterans' Business Opportunities
No ratings yet
Veterans' Business Opportunities
100 pages
Supreme Court Ruling on FCA Liability
No ratings yet
Supreme Court Ruling on FCA Liability
22 pages
Vov Appeals Final 20160115
100% (1)
Vov Appeals Final 20160115
51 pages
Fowler 5797 2022-28-7-21-11-14 Disability Breakdown Letter - UDO PDF
No ratings yet
Fowler 5797 2022-28-7-21-11-14 Disability Breakdown Letter - UDO PDF
2 pages
Ayes v. US Dept of Veterans Affairs, 4th Cir. (2006)
No ratings yet
Ayes v. US Dept of Veterans Affairs, 4th Cir. (2006)
12 pages
JVIP Proposal
No ratings yet
JVIP Proposal
18 pages
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
No ratings yet
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
6 pages
Vet State Benefits - or 2020
No ratings yet
Vet State Benefits - or 2020
18 pages
Vba 21 526ez Are
No ratings yet
Vba 21 526ez Are
10 pages
CenterPoint Energy DER Application Tariff
No ratings yet
CenterPoint Energy DER Application Tariff
9 pages
EX PARTE APPLICATION FEDERAL COURT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (Billy Earley)
100% (1)
EX PARTE APPLICATION FEDERAL COURT NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (Billy Earley)
25 pages
620 MD 2020 - Application For Emergency Relief
100% (1)
620 MD 2020 - Application For Emergency Relief
9 pages
BAS Wiki v1
No ratings yet
BAS Wiki v1
33 pages
TPD Application
0% (1)
TPD Application
8 pages
Argaret Sue Bozgoz 3553 Burr CT Unit A Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-1239 410-858-0107 13 November 2024
No ratings yet
Argaret Sue Bozgoz 3553 Burr CT Unit A Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-1239 410-858-0107 13 November 2024
27 pages
L-Theanine and Caffeine Improve Task Switching But Not Intersensory
No ratings yet
L-Theanine and Caffeine Improve Task Switching But Not Intersensory
4 pages
Veterans' Benefits Form Update
No ratings yet
Veterans' Benefits Form Update
3 pages
FED Federal Tort Claims Act
No ratings yet
FED Federal Tort Claims Act
32 pages
12-26 148, Board of Vet. App. (2016)
100% (1)
12-26 148, Board of Vet. App. (2016)
4 pages
Pamela Owen. Civil Rights. Memorandum of Points and Authorities To Motion To Stay Proceedings. Document 25
No ratings yet
Pamela Owen. Civil Rights. Memorandum of Points and Authorities To Motion To Stay Proceedings. Document 25
6 pages
Veterans Fact Sheet FS FINAL
No ratings yet
Veterans Fact Sheet FS FINAL
3 pages
A Citizen'S Guide To Appeals (Filing and Maintaining An Appeal)
No ratings yet
A Citizen'S Guide To Appeals (Filing and Maintaining An Appeal)
9 pages
Library of Congress: 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20540 Phone, 202-707-5000. Internet, WWW - Loc.gov
No ratings yet
Library of Congress: 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20540 Phone, 202-707-5000. Internet, WWW - Loc.gov
7 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Va Health Care: Access Delayed, Access Denied
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Va Health Care: Access Delayed, Access Denied
75 pages
Gabriel Garcia Indictment
No ratings yet
Gabriel Garcia Indictment
19 pages
Petition To Unseal
100% (1)
Petition To Unseal
52 pages
2016 FloridaRules Handbook
No ratings yet
2016 FloridaRules Handbook
152 pages
Information and Instructions For Completing Notice of Disagreement (Nod)
No ratings yet
Information and Instructions For Completing Notice of Disagreement (Nod)
4 pages
VA Disability Benifits - 20230307 - 0001
No ratings yet
VA Disability Benifits - 20230307 - 0001
3 pages
BILLY EARLEY v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/b/a MR. COOPER
100% (1)
BILLY EARLEY v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/b/a MR. COOPER
50 pages
Veterans' Appeals: A Broken System
No ratings yet
Veterans' Appeals: A Broken System
16 pages
Lemonade Complaint
No ratings yet
Lemonade Complaint
15 pages
CenterPointEnergy ServiceStandards2013RevisionOct2013
No ratings yet
CenterPointEnergy ServiceStandards2013RevisionOct2013
97 pages
Tennessee v. Lane - Edited
100% (1)
Tennessee v. Lane - Edited
19 pages
Notice of Ex Parte
No ratings yet
Notice of Ex Parte
28 pages
FDCPA Violation and Conversion Complaint
No ratings yet
FDCPA Violation and Conversion Complaint
8 pages
Joseph Tucker Harris Personnel Record
No ratings yet
Joseph Tucker Harris Personnel Record
12 pages
From:: To: All Veterans Date
100% (2)
From:: To: All Veterans Date
6 pages
Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil Gillespie May-27-2011
100% (1)
Verified Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil Gillespie May-27-2011
107 pages
Notice of Exercise of Personal Reserved Powers To Inslee
No ratings yet
Notice of Exercise of Personal Reserved Powers To Inslee
1 page
Supreme Court STRIPS DISABLED AMERICAN of CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Allows federal criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and 3rd branch public servants while invalidating the ADA, the Magistrate Act, the Crime Victims Act and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
100% (1)
Supreme Court STRIPS DISABLED AMERICAN of CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Allows federal criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and 3rd branch public servants while invalidating the ADA, the Magistrate Act, the Crime Victims Act and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
134 pages
Military Medical Malpractice Appeal
No ratings yet
Military Medical Malpractice Appeal
5 pages
Army Regulation 690-600 Civilian Personnel Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Complaints
100% (1)
Army Regulation 690-600 Civilian Personnel Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Complaints
164 pages
Veteran Status Self-ID Guide
No ratings yet
Veteran Status Self-ID Guide
2 pages
Federal Disability Appeal
100% (1)
Federal Disability Appeal
32 pages
Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Va Disability Compensation: Presumptive Disability Decision-Making
100% (1)
Senate Hearing, 111TH Congress - Va Disability Compensation: Presumptive Disability Decision-Making
128 pages
Munson Opening Brief On Appeal 4 Napa
No ratings yet
Munson Opening Brief On Appeal 4 Napa
20 pages
CWPA California Rule of Court Violation - State or Federal Law Violation: Improper Governmental Activity Under Government Code §§ 8547-8547.15 California Whistleblower Protection Act - Any Activity by the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeal, a Superior Court, or the Judicial Council, or by an Employee - California State Auditor Elaine Howle Bureau of State Audits
100% (1)
CWPA California Rule of Court Violation - State or Federal Law Violation: Improper Governmental Activity Under Government Code §§ 8547-8547.15 California Whistleblower Protection Act - Any Activity by the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeal, a Superior Court, or the Judicial Council, or by an Employee - California State Auditor Elaine Howle Bureau of State Audits
18 pages
When Bad Things Happen To Good Lawyers
100% (1)
When Bad Things Happen To Good Lawyers
77 pages
BRNB422000BED4A_028297 Exhibit I Email to DOD and Navy Command SNOWDEN ref: help us understand why you are setting 15 soliders up and ignoring your OATH and the ADA ACT? ALSO SEE ATTORNEYS IN BUILDING 810 who wrote/impliment the ADA ACT/1970 REHAB AND DONT FOLLOW
No ratings yet
BRNB422000BED4A_028297 Exhibit I Email to DOD and Navy Command SNOWDEN ref: help us understand why you are setting 15 soliders up and ignoring your OATH and the ADA ACT? ALSO SEE ATTORNEYS IN BUILDING 810 who wrote/impliment the ADA ACT/1970 REHAB AND DONT FOLLOW
28 pages
HARIHAR: "... These FOURTEEN (14) Federal Judges Have DISCRACED The COURT and This NATION."
No ratings yet
HARIHAR: "... These FOURTEEN (14) Federal Judges Have DISCRACED The COURT and This NATION."
37 pages
VAIQ 7693334 - VBA Letter 20-16-01 - EFolder Access
No ratings yet
VAIQ 7693334 - VBA Letter 20-16-01 - EFolder Access
6 pages
Orange County Court Corruption - ProTem - Judge Grainne Ward - Brice
100% (1)
Orange County Court Corruption - ProTem - Judge Grainne Ward - Brice
29 pages
Veteran Arrests: El Paso Analysis
No ratings yet
Veteran Arrests: El Paso Analysis
122 pages
Results For "Carrington Mortgage" From The SEC EDGAR: 20 Registrants
No ratings yet
Results For "Carrington Mortgage" From The SEC EDGAR: 20 Registrants
2 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Status of Veterans Employment
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Status of Veterans Employment
137 pages
Committee On Veterans' Affairs House of Representatives: Hearing
No ratings yet
Committee On Veterans' Affairs House of Representatives: Hearing
126 pages
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Transition Assistance Program
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Transition Assistance Program
91 pages
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program Budget and Vr&E National Counseling Contract
No ratings yet
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program Budget and Vr&E National Counseling Contract
70 pages
Greene v. Tennessee Board, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Greene v. Tennessee Board, 10th Cir. (2017)
2 pages
Pecha v. Lake, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Pecha v. Lake, 10th Cir. (2017)
25 pages
Payn v. Kelley, 10th Cir. (2017)
50% (2)
Payn v. Kelley, 10th Cir. (2017)
8 pages
United States v. Kieffer, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kieffer, 10th Cir. (2017)
20 pages
United States v. Garcia-Damian, 10th Cir. (2017)
100% (1)
United States v. Garcia-Damian, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson, 10th Cir. (2017)
100 pages
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
4 pages
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, 10th Cir. (2017)
21 pages
Coyle v. Jackson, 10th Cir. (2017)
100% (1)
Coyle v. Jackson, 10th Cir. (2017)
7 pages
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP, 10th Cir. (2017)
22 pages
Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
6 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
100% (1)
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
14 pages
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2017)
15 pages
Legal Review: Mining Dispute
No ratings yet
Legal Review: Mining Dispute
24 pages
United States v. Roberson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Roberson, 10th Cir. (2017)
50 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
100% (1)
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
10 pages
United States v. Voog, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Voog, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
United States v. Muhtorov, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Muhtorov, 10th Cir. (2017)
15 pages
Court Affirms Denial of Suppression
No ratings yet
Court Affirms Denial of Suppression
25 pages
United States v. Kearn, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kearn, 10th Cir. (2017)
25 pages
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
27 pages
United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
2 pages
NM Off-Hwy Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
NM Off-Hwy Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
Pledger v. Russell, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Pledger v. Russell, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
4 pages
United States v. Kundo, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kundo, 10th Cir. (2017)
7 pages
Coburn v. Wilkinson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Coburn v. Wilkinson, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
No ratings yet
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
17 pages
Northern New Mexicans v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Northern New Mexicans v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
10 pages
Robles v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Robles v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
FT June
No ratings yet
FT June
24 pages
Buckeye Boys State Past-Present: Volume 74, Issue 1 Monday, June 9 2014
No ratings yet
Buckeye Boys State Past-Present: Volume 74, Issue 1 Monday, June 9 2014
4 pages
The One-Party System: Official Publication of Buckeye Boys State, The American Legion of Ohio
No ratings yet
The One-Party System: Official Publication of Buckeye Boys State, The American Legion of Ohio
4 pages
Barney Whitaker Collection1
No ratings yet
Barney Whitaker Collection1
12 pages
Lounge Specials: Sundays Mimosa's Mondays Margaritas Tuesdays Amber Boch & Mich Ultra Draft
No ratings yet
Lounge Specials: Sundays Mimosa's Mondays Margaritas Tuesdays Amber Boch & Mich Ultra Draft
4 pages
ALA Girls State Brochure
No ratings yet
ALA Girls State Brochure
2 pages
July-August 2014 Newsletter - American Legion #176 Waverly, IA
No ratings yet
July-August 2014 Newsletter - American Legion #176 Waverly, IA
2 pages
Feb. 11, 2010
100% (1)
Feb. 11, 2010
20 pages
eScholarships-April2012-HoustonEdition 1
No ratings yet
eScholarships-April2012-HoustonEdition 1
49 pages
Jan. 14, 2010
No ratings yet
Jan. 14, 2010
16 pages
We Get Results!: Barre
No ratings yet
We Get Results!: Barre
36 pages
2023 Post Officers Guide
No ratings yet
2023 Post Officers Guide
148 pages
Hudson Litchfield News 1-27-2017 PDF
100% (1)
Hudson Litchfield News 1-27-2017 PDF
12 pages
Gi Bill Powerpoint
No ratings yet
Gi Bill Powerpoint
10 pages
Chess in The Us Army
No ratings yet
Chess in The Us Army
33 pages
Paulding Progress May 20, 2015
No ratings yet
Paulding Progress May 20, 2015
26 pages
November 9, 2013
No ratings yet
November 9, 2013
10 pages
Board Members Present WDVA Present
No ratings yet
Board Members Present WDVA Present
9 pages
Barlow Biggers Article
No ratings yet
Barlow Biggers Article
2 pages
2015 List of 501 C 3 Filed W Atty General
No ratings yet
2015 List of 501 C 3 Filed W Atty General
108 pages
2019 New York State Senate Veterans' Hall of Fame Honorees
No ratings yet
2019 New York State Senate Veterans' Hall of Fame Honorees
63 pages
First Amended Complaint Rainey-V-VA
No ratings yet
First Amended Complaint Rainey-V-VA
26 pages
SGT at Arms Guide
100% (1)
SGT at Arms Guide
5 pages
American Legion Testimony
No ratings yet
American Legion Testimony
8 pages
Delphos Honors Its Veterans: Elphos Erald
100% (2)
Delphos Honors Its Veterans: Elphos Erald
10 pages
Arden H. Mckee Legion Post 128: Sterling, Kansas
No ratings yet
Arden H. Mckee Legion Post 128: Sterling, Kansas
4 pages
Feb. 25, 2010
No ratings yet
Feb. 25, 2010
20 pages
City Furlough To End in January: Elphos Erald
No ratings yet
City Furlough To End in January: Elphos Erald
12 pages
Jbs-CP56hV-1705703029-ALJBS Delegate Permission Slip 2024
No ratings yet
Jbs-CP56hV-1705703029-ALJBS Delegate Permission Slip 2024
1 page