The Department of Veterans Affairs

vocational rehabilitation and

employment program

Hearing

before the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

first session

April 20, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-3

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2005

22-358.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelly Berkley, Nevada

Devin Nunes, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mike Copher, Acting Staff Director

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

John Boozman, Arkansas, Chairman Stephanie herseth, South 

Richard H. Baker, Louisiana Dakota, Ranking

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida, Vice Chairwoman Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Devin Nunes, California Lane Evans, Illinois

 

Michael F. Brinck, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

April 20, 2005

 Page

1

 1

29

 3

72

73

84

90

4

31

6

32

16

44

21

61

94

Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation 

 and Employment Program .....................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Boozman .................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Chairman Boozman ..............................

Hon. Stephanie Herseth, ranking democratic member, 

 Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ..............................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite ...........................................................

Sharp, Joseph C., Deputy Director, Economic Commission,

 The American Legion ..............................................................

Jones, Richard “Rick,” National Legislative Director, 

 AMVETS .................................................................................

Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant National Legislative Director, 

 Disabled American Veterans ..................................................

Witnesses

Forney, Joseph K., Former Vocational Rehabilitation Parti-

 cipant ....................................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Mr. Forney ............................................

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Vet-

 erans of America .....................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake ..............................................

Bascetta, Cynthia A., Director of Veterans Health and Bene-

 fits Issues, Government Accountability Office ......................

Prepared statement of Ms. Bascetta ..........................................

Caden, Judith, Director, Vocational Rehabilitation and Em-

 ployment Program, Veterans Benefits Administration ........

Prepared statement of Ms. Caden .............................................

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. John Boozman ....................................................................

 (III)
(1)

HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Boozman [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Boozman, Herseth, Brown-Waite, Hooley, Baker, Evans, and Nunes.

Opening Statement of Chairman Boozman

 Mr. Boozman. Good afternoon. The first hearing of the Economic 

Opportunity Subcommittee will come to order.

 Before we begin, I would like to introduce the members of the subcommittee and share my thoughts on what the Subcommittee should 

be about.

 The Ranking Member is Ms. Stephanie Herseth, who represents 

the whole state -- I emphasize the whole state -- of South Dakota. 

She’s been a member of the Veterans Committee since winning a special election, and we are very, very pleased to have the opportunity to 

work with her as Ranking Member and I truly look forward to working with her in a very bipartisan way so that we can do some good 

things for veterans.

 On this side of the aisle, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, from Florida’s 

5th District, is the Vice Chair, and certainly she has proven to be a 

true advocate for veterans, and we are very glad to have her aboard 

and welcome her counsel.

 And I am especially pleased that the Ranking Member of the full 

committee, Lane Evans, will be joining us. Certainly Mr. Evans has 

done a tremendous job for veterans’ issues and his voice is always a 

valuable addition to our work.

 Mr. Richard Baker, from the 6th District in Louisiana, as the chair-
2

man of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets 

brings a great understanding of how VA loan guarantee programs 

relate to real estate and financial markets.

 Ms. Darlene Hooley comes to us from the 5th District of Oregon. 

She brings a broad range of expertise in education, health care, and 

finance to the Subcommittee, and, again, I appreciate her past work 

on behalf of veterans.

 Our final member is a second term member from California’s 21st 

District, Devin Nunes. He was raised on a family farm and is a man 

who knows what it is to grow up with dirt under his fingernails and 

the value of those who are close to this great nation’s soil. So, again, 

we welcome him aboard and his commitment to veterans.

 The Subcommittee title says what we are going to be about -- improving the economic opportunities for veterans. While the Economic 

Opportunity Subcommittee has jurisdiction over several other programs and will not ignore them, I intend to focus on the programs 

run by the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service, and 

the Veterans Employment and Training Service.

 That means we’re going to look very closely, with the help of GAO, 

at the programs designed to put veterans to work or achieve a maximum degree of independent living. It also means that VA and DOL

must gather the data necessary for them and us to determine the effectiveness of existing programs and to justify any new start.

 I strongly believe the Voc Rehab and Employment program should 

be the crown jewel of VA programs. As such, it is vital that VA leadership place increased emphasis on the program’s performance, especially in relation to its integration with the Department of Labor’s 

programs managed by the Veterans Employment and Training Service. I note the presence of the word “employment” in the title of both 

programs, and if we accomplish nothing else, I want to see the two so 

closely tied as to be transparent to the disabled veteran.

 Labor’s VETS has a special obligation to our veterans. We have 

vested them with the responsibility of finding jobs for the unemployed and disabled veterans. We’ve got many questions about how 

well VETS is doing in that respect, and we will have an oversight 

hearing to determine their performance in the near future, as well as 

the performance of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, 

a grant program designed to get homeless vets off the street and get 

them ready to reenter the workforce.

 The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act also fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. I want to make sure that 

these important laws continue to protect the rights and responsibilities of our returning servicemembers, and we will do just that.

 The GI Bill is perhaps the most famous piece of veterans’ legislation, and we look forward to ensuring it meets the goals of preparing 
3

veterans for a lifetime of productive citizenship.

 Finally, the Loan Guaranty program has a distinguished history of 

improving home ownership for veterans. VA does a good job running 

the program, and my goal is -- I think our goal is to ensure that no 

one tarnishes that record. Additionally, I want to look very closely at 

programs that make it easier for disabled veterans to not only buy a 

home, but also live comfortably in that home.

 I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Herseth, for any remarks she has.

Opening Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

very pleased to be here with you today as we commence the first hearing for this newly established Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. I firmly believe that this Subcommittee will provide a valuable 

forum to discuss, examine and develop federal policy that will be a 

catalyst to enhanced economic and financial conditions for our servicemembers, veterans and military families.

 Indeed, I can think of no other segment of society that has sacrificed 

so much and requested so little in return throughout this nation’s 

history, including and especially through the past few years, than our 

troops, veterans and military families.

 Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to congratulate you on your 

leadership of this Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you 

in a productive and bipartisan manner as we proceed through this 

109th Congress. I believe that we as well as everyone in the room can 

agree that the vocational rehabilitation and preparation for employment and reemployment of disabled veterans should be a top priority 

for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 On that note, let me welcome everyone here today. I’m very interested in hearing the witnesses’ testimony and appreciate your willingness to participate and assist us in our congressional oversight 

duties. I understand that the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Employment program has undergone serious programmatic changes 

and continues to implement certain recommendations from the Secretary’s VR&E Task Force Report. I am pleased that the VA has 

taken this Task Force Report seriously, and I look forward to monitoring the program’s next steps.

 Clearly, we have an obligation to improve VR&E services, and I

hope the VA continues to make the necessary efforts, including resource investments, to continue the progress that has been made.

 Specifically, I’m interested in examining the following areas during 

today’s hearing on the VR&E program: Accessibility of VR&E services in rural areas; Seamless and accelerated transition services, 

especially for returning members of the National Guard and Reserve 
4

forces; The related issue of DoD and VA cooperation with respect to 

VR&E; Data integrity; and Coordination of employment counseling 

services with other federal job training entities, as well as state vocational rehabilitation services.

 Mr. Chairman, vocational rehabilitation and independent living 

services are vitally important. We and our colleagues on the Subcommittee all recognize this and are committed to making a difference in 

the lives of veterans and their families.

 Given the current military situation overseas and the current economic situation in many states, this hearing is quite appropriate and 

timely for a number of reasons. First, just as in South Dakota and 

in Arkansas and other states, we have a number of National Guard 

units that have been deployed, are waiting to deploy, have returned 

home from their initial deployments. But at the same time, vocational rehabilitation services and opportunities remain limited as we 

do not want to do anything to neglect the needs of veterans of past 

wars and military conflicts.

 I strongly believe that a top quality VR&E program can assist in 

addressing these types of concerns with the needs of a new generation 

of veterans as well as those that have served in the past. Moreover, 

in my opinion, it’s the least that a grateful nation should provide to 

our disabled veterans.

 Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and for 

your leadership on the committee. I look forward to working with you 

on this very important subject.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you for those remarks. Let’s go ahead and get 

started then. When we set up the hearing, we thought it would be 

good to hear from veterans who had been through the voc rehab program. We asked Sergeant Sean Lewis to be with us today, and he’s 

currently at Walter Reed going through rehab there, and he’s unable 

to make it today. So, again, like I say, hopefully, maybe at some other 

time we’ll be able to get him involved. And we certainly want to wish 

him a lot of luck as he goes forward.

 But we have Mr. Joseph Forney, a small businessman from California, who went through the program several years ago. And then also, 

we have Mr. Carl Blake from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, who 

will provide us with the results of an informal survey that he did on 

our behalf.

 So, welcome. Why don’t you go ahead, Mr. Forney.

STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH K. FORNEY, FORMER VOCA-

 TIONAL REHABILITATION PARTICIPANT; AND CARL

 BLAKE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARA-

 LYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH K. FORNEY
5

 Mr. Forney. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

other members of the committee. I appreciate it. It’s a privilege and 

an honor to be here today.

 I was thinking of Sergeant Lewis unable to make it is one of the 

prime examples of how hard it is to get a traditional academic education. When I spoke to Mr. Brink about my testimony, and when he 

invited me, it made me reflect on how much fun it was to be in college, 

and how after 14 short years I got my four-year degree.

 A lot of the problem was because of my medical condition, which 

would cause me to start and stop school. It’s hard to be tethered to 

a time clock and a schedule when you have ongoing and changing 

medical conditions, especially with persons who have had severe disabilities or injuries. That was part of the reason, plus the fact that I

enjoyed college so much, that they had to pretty much kick me out. 

But it took so long to obtain a degree.

 Oftentimes with persons with disabilities, severe disabilities, employment is very hard to get. Employers are not looking to take on 

extra risks or to help to ease the fit of a person with a severe disability into their company. It just doesn’t work. The joke is besides my 

sparking personality, is I’m too unemployable to be employed and I

had to be self-employed.

 I have nothing but good things to say about the VA and their voc 

rehab program and helping me to attend college. I just believe as an 

entrepreneur, if that option would have been made available to me, I

think we could have saved a lot of time and money for both of us.

 As a matter of fact, in the last two years of school, I was actively 

running my business in California. We’ve had a state law for disabled 

veteran participation since 1990. And I was running the same small 

business that I run today, and also attending college.

 Because my degree to be a P.E. teacher was not something that 

I was looking to actually engage in. It was a way to just rehabilitate myself back into life. And when I started it in 1980, of course I

had every intention of getting out and getting right to it, but ongoing 

medical treatments, as I mentioned before, would cause me to start 

and stop.

 I think that if the VA was to look at entrepreneurship as a form of 

rehabilitation and help severely disabled veterans who are going to 

have a harder time finding employment because of their service-connected disabilities, and then tie that into some sort of actual on-thejob training or some sort of contractual basis, if the individual wanted 

to sell widgets and the VA had a need for widgets, if upon graduation 

of an entrepreneurial course they were to be considered for providing 

those widgets as part of their rehabilitation, I think that would be a 

good start to help build a base from which they could then go on to the 

public sector and with the -- I’ve been trained in buy low, sell high, 

and I provide these widgets to the VA. I’d like to sell them to you as 
6

a private corporation, I think that that would be an excellent way to 

help expedite the matter.

 And there again, not that I didn’t enjoy 14 years of college, the fact 

that if there was something that was more streamlined and geared for 

those who can’t be on a time clock, as Sergeant Lewis. We all know 

how difficult it is to try to get over the smallest restriction. But then 

to try to get over something as difficult as an amputation or some sort 

of paralysis, formal education and unemployment is just not a good 

-- entrepreneurial opportunities with the government might be a better way to do that.

 I appreciate the committee’s time. If there’s any questions I can 

answer, I’d be more than grateful.

[The statement of Mr. Forney appears on p. 31]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Blake?

 Before we go on, real quick, Mr. Evans has joined us, and Mr. 

Evans is the Ranking Member, and he’s somebody that I’ve really 

enjoyed working with. I’ve been on the committee since I’ve been in 

Congress, and somebody that I’ve really enjoyed working with Mr. 

Evans, and I know that nobody in Congress has a greater heart for 

veterans than Lane Evans, so.

 Mr. Evans. Well, maybe I should just shut up and sit down. That’s 

a very complimentary introduction. 

 So, let me yield back my time at this point.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

 Mr. Blake. Chairman Boozman, members of the Subcommittee, 

PVA would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. Having submitted my full statement for the record, I will limit my comments to the informal survey which you referred to of selected newly 

injured spinal cord injured veterans.

 As many of you know, PVA is an organization that represents veterans who have suffered a spinal cord injury or disease. Our members 

rely on the services provided by VR&E, particularly the independent 

living program, which helps them learn activities of daily living prior 

to even trying to gain employment once again.

 Because many of the recommendations of the Task Force Report 

released in March of last year focused on the internal workings of 

VR&E or on cultural changes within the service, it is difficult to judge 

how the program has done at implementing some of the recommenda-
7

tions made by the Task Force.

 Furthermore, PVA is concerned that many of our members have 

not had the access to the new information being put out by VA. Often, severely disabled veterans needing DTAP services, the Disabled 

Transition Assistance Program services, fall through the cracks, 

especially spinal cord injured veterans who may already be getting 

health care and rehabilitation at a VA medical center while still on 

active duty.

 Because these individuals are no longer located on or near a military installation, they are often forgotten in the transition assistance 

process. I can offer myself as an example of that, albeit a few years 

ago.

 In order to get a better idea of how the VR&E program is serving veterans, PVA conducted the informal survey which I mentioned. 

The veterans that we interviewed, ten of them to be exact, represent 

approximately 20 percent of the total number of veterans who have 

incurred spinal cord injuries within the last two years. I’d like to say 

that that’s a positive thing, because we are one of the few organizations where we really don’t encourage membership in our organization, because the requirements are pretty drastic.

 It must be noted that the first contact that most of these veterans 

had with VR&E was prior to the release of the Task Force report last 

year. We asked them a series of questions, which I outlined in my full 

statement. I won’t go over them again.

 Each of the veterans contacted had initially come in contact -- or 

had initially come through a military medical facility prior to moving 

to a VA medical center with spinal cord injury centers there. Of the 

ten soldiers, four were Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom veterans, and six were injured in the line of duty while at their 

home stations. 

 One of the four individuals who served in OEF and OIF was a 

National Guard member. And all of the soldiers who had been interviewed had already received a service-connected rating from the VA.

 Three of the veterans interviewed were currently enrolled in the 

VR&E program, but none of the veterans have actually completed the 

program as of yet.

 The other seven members were aware of the services provided by 

VR&E but had chose not to participate at this time. There are various reasons as to -- or conclusions as to why that might be. I won’t go 

into that. We can discuss that if you’d like over questions.

 The four OEF/OIF soldiers actually found out about the VR&E program through programs conducted at the Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center.

 The six veterans who were injured at their home stations were 

transferred from the medical facilities at their installation to a VA

spinal cord injury center that was nearest to their home or one that 
8

they chose. None of them were informed about the VR&E service at 

the military medical facility. However, all of them explained that 

they had been approached once they got to a VA medical center by a 

representative of VR&E.

 And none of these six veterans participated in a TAP or a DTAP

program. This remains a serious concern, as I outline in my statement, of PVA.

 Two of the most recently injured veterans have actually seen the 

new video that we were briefed on by the VA last week that they’ve 

put out that details what the VR&E service offers. It focuses on the 

new Five-Track employment process that was one of the major recommendations of the Task Force report last year.

 They stated that it was a very informative video and that it opened 

their minds to possibilities that they had not considered, specifically 

as Mr. Forney mentioned, self-employment. I don’t think it’s something that crosses most young soldiers’ minds right offhand after 

they’ve been injured. And that opens up a whole new avenue of longterm stability in their life and an employment avenue that they can 

take.

 The veterans who chose not to participate in the VR&E program 

were given information on what to do if and when they decided to 

enroll. And a couple of the veterans said that they were told that VA

staff would follow up at a later date. Each of the soldiers who are 

currently enrolled in the VR&E program said that their experience 

was positive, and that they discussed what they had hoped to achieve 

with VR&E staff and they also had that discussion with myself.

 All three of the veterans entered in the program prior to the implementation of the new Five-Track employment process, and they indicated they were not familiar with this process that was recommended 

by the Task Force. When I explained it to them, though, they did, as 

I mentioned, express a lot of interest in it.

 Two of those individuals were currently enrolled in college courses 

and -- I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Could I have another minute or so?

 Mr. Boozman. Yes, very much.

 Mr. Blake. The one remaining veteran who was enrolled in VR&E

is currently enrolled in the independent living program, which is closer to PVA’s heart because of the activities that they focus on.

 He explained that the independent living program staff has been 

very professional with him and worked to overcome the significant 

challenges that he faced. He was a C-6 quadriplegic, so you can imagine the things that he has to face day to day. He even expressed a 

desire to seek employment through self-employment following completion of the independent living program, which is something that 

we’ve been trying to encourage more of our members to do because of 

the significant challenges that the severely disabled face in trying to 
9

gain employment.

 Although our survey does not provide clear evidence of what changes the VA has made since the release of the VR&E Task Force report, 

it does show that the VA is making I would say a good faith effort to 

address the needs of these soldiers.

 However, we still have concerns about the voc rehab program, as I

outlined in the independent budget for fiscal year ‘06 and as I outline 

in my full statement. Many of these concerns were outlined by the 

Task Force report last year, and they made recommendations to address many of these deficiencies.

 We feel that the VA must continue to move forward to implement 

the recommendations made by the Task Force report. Ultimately, 

that can only create a better VR&E service.

 We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Subcommittee to ensure that the VA pursues meaningful 

reforms to the VR&E service. And I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

 Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 32]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Forney, you expressed your dismay 

about wanting to kind of follow a different track; that you were actually kind of pushed into another one.

 Your idea of the entrepreneurship training, how do you see that as 

working, specifically? If you could set the program up, what needs to 

be there that you were lacking in that regard specifically?

 Mr. Forney. With any good program, you would want to be able 

to identify what the outcome is: Self-employment through entrepreneurial means. And then with a contractor, some sort of stabilizing 

base at the end of a predetermined time to see -- a filtering mechanism. Entrepreneurship is not for everyone. Out of all the veterans I

talk to every day that say that the government has to buy 3 percent, 

I remind them, they don’t have to do anything.

 If we could have a good filtering process to determine who is best 

suited for entrepreneurship, and then with a contractual tie-in at the 

end of graduation. It doesn’t take long to learn to buy low, sell high. 

But all the experience in the world, if there’s no payoff at the end, 

some direct reward for learning how to run and establish a small 

business, it would never fly.

 With all the things that the VA and the Department of Defense 

buys, it would be easy to find areas where they need to have certain 

goods and services. And who better to provide those goods and services than the former employees of Department of Defense and veterans 

who are going through entrepreneurial training from the VA?

 So it would be a good filtering process to find out who not just wants 
10

to but has the means and wherewithal to be in entrepreneurship. I

remember at the roundtable you said you had a business with your 

brother. And you understand. You’re only working half days from 7 

to 7. You’re the last one to get paid, and nothing’s guaranteed.

 But if there was that stabilizing factor of a contract at the end to 

provide that good or service, I think that would help to establish the 

returning veteran, and then they could go look for stuff in the private 

sector using that base contract as a starting point.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Blake, tell me, you know, as a result of your 

study, what specific recommendations do you think that we need to 

go forward?

 Mr. Blake. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that the one 

downside to our survey is that the majority of the veterans that we 

interviewed went through VR&E or had contact with VR&E prior to 

the release of the study. I think the important thing is, we have to 

start to identify individuals who have been injured just say in the 

last year or so that would be more likely to have come in contact with 

that program.

 The downside to the survey that we conducted was the vast majority of the members of our organization that I interviewed were 

injured either in Afghanistan in 2002 or were injured in 2003. The 

OIF/OEF veterans who we know that we have as our organization, 

part of our organization, were injured during the initial stages of 

fighting in Iraq.

 The other problem that I think we face is, there’s been a lot of 

discussion about the wonderful things going on at Walter Reed and 

Bethesda, and I can’t help but second that. But I think what gets lost 

in this is that there are veterans at home stations who are not currently deployed overseas who are assigned to their units and who are 

not -- just doing training or getting injured, and they don’t have the 

same kind of access to the services.

 They do have some and, you know, the TAP and the DTAP programs have come under a lot of scrutiny in the last couple of years. 

In fact I know you all I believe were supposed to have a hearing on 

it in the near future on the VETS service. And I think we have to 

make sure that it’s not lost that these veterans at their home stations 

should be getting the same services.

 We fully support the idea that the veterans who are in Walter Reed 

and Bethesda and Brooke and some other facilities are getting these 

services, but they’re like the center of the universe. Every -- all of 

the top notch services being directed there, and we can’t lose sight of 

the other locations that are around this country where veterans are 

at -- or soldiers are at every day. They should be getting the same 

services, and I think it’s inconsistent, particularly when it comes to 

the TAP program and even more so the DTAP program.

 As I mentioned with our members, the problem that our members 
11

face in getting DTAP services is, almost as soon as they are injured, 

get a spinal cord injury, they’re moved to a military medical facility. 

But almost immediately they’re identified for going to a VA spinal 

cord injury center, because it’s just a fact that the Department of Defense doesn’t have the capability to provide the type of rehab services 

that the VA SCI centers have.

 And so they want to move them as quickly as they can to ensure that 

they get quality rehab right away. And somewhere in that transfer 

process, some of the important steps get lost, like going to DTAP programs and some of the other services that all of the men and women 

going through the most obvious places right now are getting.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth?

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you. Mr. Forney, I don’t have any questions, 

just appreciate your testimony, because I think it always helps to 

hear the specific examples and personal experiences that give us a 

better appreciation for the need for flexibility, whether that’s flexibility in the types of programs through the formal education that’s 

offered, or beyond that in the type of structure that you’ve described 

today that provide each individual the flexibility to see which skill 

set and interest and motivation is best suited for each individual service-connected disabled veteran, for what is the best to pursue and 

what opportunities should be there as you’ve described within both 

agencies, with the VA and the DoD. So I appreciate hearing from you 

today.

 And, Mr. Blake, I recently had a meeting with some folks in South 

Dakota and Sioux Falls at our regional office, and we had folks from 

North Dakota there as well, and the state president of South Dakota’s 

PVA, Joel Neimeyer was there, and a few other folks that had benefitted and participated in the vocational rehabilitation program and 

echoed the point that you made that in the informal survey, those that 

got enrolled had some pretty positive experiences by and large within 

the program, and they couldn’t say enough positive things about the 

folks that were administering the programs in our region.

 So to come back to the whole issue of outreach, early intervention, 

how do we reach the folks that you’ve described, not only those that 

are active duty and deployed, but then those that perhaps are injured 

at their home installations? Then we have the National Guard and 

Reserve component here as well.

 Do you know -- and maybe PVA has been involved in each state 

National Guard and Reserve force has been handling this a little bit 

differently, but do you see the need for the VA to reach out on the regional level even more with each of the National Guard and Reserve 

units or with the officers in each state to make sure, especially with 

this group of folks that are transitioning back to civilian life have the 

type of information that you’ve described?

 Mr. Blake. Yes, ma’am. I think the Guard and Reserve has taken a 
12

lot of attention, and those are a lot of the folks who are really getting 

lost in this. But the one thing to remember is, most if not all of the 

National Guard and Reserve units, when they come back from their 

deployment, they’re coming through a major military installation. 

They’re not coming -- they don’t necessarily go directly home. And 

this is the perfect opportunity to get that information to them.

 And sometimes it’s a struggle to decide, do we want to get these 

soldiers home right away? Because that’s the foremost thing in their 

mind. Or do we want to make sure that they get all of the information that they need and all of their proper forms are filled out 

and that they understand everything that’s available to them before 

they’re let go?

 And that’s an ongoing struggle that we face. But I think in the interest of erring in favor of the long-term benefit of these soldiers, we 

can’t let them get away before they have everything that they need 

to know or we’ve inundated them with all the information that they 

need.

 Ms. Herseth. Well, I couldn’t agree more. And perhaps the chairman has heard this from some of the men and women he’s talked to 

in his district. The folks that are coming back after those lengthy deployments, and they’re coming back through a major military installation like you said, whether it’s Fort Sill or Fort Carson or wherever, 

they just want to get through that process as quickly as possible. 

They haven’t seen their families yet. You know, they’re there for that 

certain stage of deactivation before they get home. And they’re getting a lot of information at once.

 And my concern is that, especially with staffing resources, whether 

-- that it really be focused not only administering the programs, but 

the outreach, so that these people don’t, once they get home, once 

they start that transition back with their families and what their 

needs may be, that it’s not just a one shot time of providing information but rather being proactive and in part, you know, learning from 

the lessons of how we treated some Vietnam-era veterans, that we do 

what we can through the VA, through organizations like yours, to be 

much more proactive but dedicate the resources and the investments 

in doing that.

 Mr. Blake. One of the points, ma’am, that I got out of it was a 

number of them mentioned that they were told that there would be 

follow-up. And I think that that can be lost. The VA needs to understand that these soldiers are expecting it, and they can’t shirk that 

responsibility.

 I was watching the Senate committee’s hearing they had yesterday, and they had a couple of the newly injured soldiers that testified 

before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and both of them 

brought up an interesting point that continuous follow-up needs to be 

done with these soldiers, even though they might decline VR&E ser-
13

vice initially, there’s so many things going through their mind right 

now and so many things that they’re focused on that that might not 

be at the forefront.

 And so the VA has to continue to follow up with these soldiers 

and not let them get away from them without absolute certainty that 

that’s not what they want to do. We don’t want to run the risk of 

putting these young men and women out there, and then they face 

possibilities with mental health or substance abuse that results from 

not being able to get employment, or they face homelessness.

 I think the follow-up needs to be there so that we can stop -- head 

off some of these problems before they occur.

 Mr. Boozman. We’ve been joined by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite from 

Florida, and she is the Vice Chair of our committee. It’s really been 

great to get to work with her, and we certainly appreciate her counsel.

 Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know 

how dedicated you are to this cause. I have a large number of veterans who -- a large number of military who were called up through 

National Guard units. And one of the things that I found, and maybe 

this isn’t nationwide and this may be part of the problem, and I’m 

sure either one of you gentlemen can help me, is that with the National Guard units that that follow-up and the information is also 

supplied through the family coordinators back home -- the wives, the 

mothers who are very involved in family support.

 Is that not being done nationwide? Is that part of the problem? 

Because I can tell you that the mothers and the wives are very interested in making sure that every possible benefit that the veteran is 

entitled to, that they -- if applicable, that they take advantage of. So 

I’ll just be quiet and ask for your counsel and advice. Is it not being 

done nationwide?

 Mr. Blake. Well, I would, Ms. Brown-Waite, I would offer up that 

that would be the perfect question for another member of my staff 

who happens to be deployed right now to Afghanistan with the National Guard, and he could probably perfectly answer that question 

as to whether that information is being put out through the family 

readiness groups and the coordinators.

 Having only served on active duty, I know when we were deployed, 

a lot of information was pumped out through family readiness groups. 

But that shouldn’t be the primary avenue. It all falls back on making 

sure that the soldiers themselves get the information.

 I haven’t heard stories about whether it’s inconsistent or not. I’d 

be happy to ask via the wonders of the Internet my colleague who is 

overseas, or when he comes back, I’m sure he could give you a perfect 

answer to that question.

 Ms. Brown-Waite. Mr. Forney?

 Mr. Forney. I wouldn’t know about how they’re followed up with the 
14

reserves, but here again with the veteran being the principal breadwinner, an elongated educational course that could go on for years as 

opposed to a shortened entrepreneurial, this is the perfect example.

 If you have a family to care for, to go through a long educational 

process to end up with a degree to hope to work for a big company 

somewhere down the line when the family is counting on you, I think, 

again, this is another good argument for self-employment, because 

we could start that and have a completion date and then self-employment much sooner than years of -- and it is always the wives and the 

daughters that try to -- because when you get out, you just want to 

just go home. I -- when you said that. But then when the reality sets 

in about I have to do something, now it’s hard to make that choice.

 Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Evans?

 Mr. Evans. Thank you very much. You’re a good person to follow, 

because you bring up so many good points to us today. And one of 

them is in 1970, ‘71, people getting out of the Marine Corps, 33 percent had less than honorable discharges. They weren’t getting any 

support from home or the community. They weren’t in a position to do 

so many things like we think they should do, so people who have gone 

and defended this country in time of war, should get better help. 

 It’s a problem we face today. And of course in the ‘70s, it was the 

voter employment programs referred to the old OJ training period, 

OJT. It didn’t help them because the veteran was unqualified and 

wouldn’t be able to deal with the stress that they’d been through, 

never had any business background, never had a family that had that 

kind of situation.

 So how do we correct that? You talked about entrepreneurial decisions. But, you know, I think we get caught up in the old rhetoric 

that the emergency -- I’m trying to think of the ‘70s, the Emergency 

Veterans Employment. Already just in the title of that bill there’s 

something that I think denigrates veterans unintentionally, inflicted, self-inflicted perhaps. But how do we get to the bottom of these 

things and make them work?

 Mr. Forney. Again, that time element is so critical. If we could get 

to the veteran with the severe disability, help them to see something, 

a light at the end of the tunnel, much quicker than the traditional 

education higher degree, but have something to keep them, because 

of that disconnect.

 And I forgot all about how the mind starts to play tricks on you. The 

substance abuse, the homeless issue. I forgot all about that. We’ve 

got to keep these guys, these men and women busy and have them 

something to shoot for as opposed to what seems to be the brushoff. 

And if it was tied into once you get the career moving, the house, the 

spouse, you get it all, and that American dream that they’ve sacrificed for.
15

 You’re exactly right. The time element is critical. If we could get --

and who better to buy things from disabled veterans than the largest 

federal employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs?

 Mr. Evans. Anybody else?

 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your time and your 

interest. We’ll continue to look at this issue as time goes on. And I

do like the fact that you’re being flexible. What happened to us, the 

generation, we’re not going to be able to follow through and help everybody across the board. But the ones that are saving, that can be 

saved.

 It seems to me that when you have a ten-year delimiting date, you 

hurt those people more than any other program I can think, because 

that’s for their educational benefits, and then suddenly you don’t have 

a plan. I’m not trying to personalize this, but I know so many people 

that come back home, they had no plans, you know, been discharged 

with less than honorable discharges. And it was a tough time, the 

whole era. And I think we should be glad that they were there when 

we did it, but we ought to be giving us the help that we need when it’s 

our turn to start those small businesses, those mom-and-pop operations and so forth.

 So thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it.

 Mr. Boozman. Yes. Thank you very much. One of the things I

kicked around with staff yesterday was maybe the committee, and 

I need to talk to Ms. Herseth and her staff about this, but maybe 

us identifying a group, a small group, and not just the Walter Reed, 

Bethesda, but as you said, the scattered around, maybe just identify 

a very small group and then communicating periodically as they start 

this process and then that way, that would be a way for us to keep up 

besides all the other mechanisms that we have to see the pitfalls, you 

know, that they’re going through, and to help us better understand.

 You know -- nobody understands, you do in the sense of going 

through this. But I think that might be something that helps us 

better understand as they run into the barriers that get erected. So 

again, that’s something that we’ll kick around and see if that’s workable or not.

 But I think any help that we can get in understanding what’s going 

on, how we can improve, we really would be very grateful.

 So thank you very much for your testimony. 

 Mr. Blake. Thank you, sir.

 Mr. Boozman. Our second panel is comprised of from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, Ms. Cynthia Bascetta, Director 

of Veterans Health and Benefits Issues, accompanied by Ms. Irene 

Chu, Assistant Director of Veterans Affairs and Military Health Care 

Issues.

 Ms. Bascetta, get yourself some water and get after it.
16

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. BASCETTA, DIRECTOR OF

 VETERANS HEALTH AND BENEFITS ISSUES, GOVERN-

 MENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY

 IRENE CHU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VETERANS’ 

 AFFAIRS AND MILITARY HEALTH CARE ISSUES

 Ms. Bascetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate your invitation for me to speak to you today 

about GAO’s views on the VR&E program.

 The individual experiences of servicemembers from Iraq provide 

compelling reasons to expedite assistance to help them overcome 

their combat-related injuries. But from a societal point of view, given 

the projected slowdown in the growth of the nation’s labor force, it is 

of paramount importance that we support people with disabilities, including veterans, to maximize their ability to participate in the paid 

labor force.

 Our work is based on GAO reports dating back to 1984 when we 

first expressed concerns about VR&E’s focus on education rather than 

employment. Notably, 20 years later, the task force highlighted the 

need to establish an employment-driven process and to give VR&E

services priority within VBA, which has been dominated by claims 

processing rather than face-to-face service delivery.

 The task force also found that VR&E has limited capacity to manage its growing workload and that it needs to redesign its program for 

the modern employment environment.

 My written statement provides the details of our broad agreement 

with the task force’s other findings and recommendations, so I’d like 

to direct my comments today to the challenges VA faces in transforming VR&E to a program for the 21st Century veteran.

 First, in accordance with rehabilitation principles, the VA needs 

to find ways to provide services as early as possible, particularly for 

servicemembers newly injured in combat. Unlike previous wars, battlefield medicine and body armor are saving the lives of more servicemembers, although often at the price of severe disabilities.

 While technological advances such as new prosthetics are making 

it possible for some of these disabled servicemembers to return to 

military occupations, other will transition to veteran status and look 

for employment in the civilian economy. Consequently, VR&E has 

a significant opportunity to assist them in overcoming their impairments and making a smooth transition.

 But individual differences and uncertainties in the recovery process 

are inherent challenges in determining the earliest time to begin voc 

rehab. And in addition, VA and DoD have not yet reached an agreement for VA to have access to information that both agencies agree 

is needed to promote servicemembers’ recovery and their return to 
17

work, either in the military or in the civilian life.

 Also, VA needs policies and procedures for its staff to follow up 

with seriously injured servicemembers or veterans once they leave 

military hospitals. We reported that some regional offices on their 

own initiative followed up to remind veterans who may not have been 

ready for services that they were still eligible for VR&E.

 For those who might be receptive to VR&E at a later date, policies 

and procedures from the central office for the regional offices to use in 

following up would help prevent these servicemembers from falling 

through the cracks.

 The second challenge is VR&E’s outmoded information technology 

systems. Like the task force, we are concerned that VR&E IT systems are not up to the task of producing the information and analyses 

needed to manage the program, although we are aware that they are 

working on this issue.

 For example, many of their outbased locations still use slow and 

unreliable dial-up connections to access their automated case management system. Moreover, this system can generate only a snapshot of veterans in the program, but cannot now track their progress 

over time.

 Managing workload is also complicated because the IT system cannot track the number of veterans who drop out of the program or who 

interrupt their rehabilitation plans.

 The third challenge VR&E faces is the development of better results-oriented criteria to measure the long-term effectiveness of its 

services. Currently, VR&E still counts veterans as successfully rehabilitated if they maintain gainful employment for 60 days. This 

relatively short-term measure, however, may not accurately predict 

sustained employment over longer timeframes.

 In fact, in a 1993 report on state vocational rehabilitation agencies, we found that the 60-day measure may not be rigorous enough 

because gains in employment and earnings of clients who appear to 

have been successfully rehabilitated actually faded after about two 

years. The task force recommended longer-term measures, and the 

VSO’s independent budget suggested that VR&E track rehabilitated 

veterans for at least two years.

 We are pleased to see that VA’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and 

Accountability Report included two long-term, employment-based 

measures of effectiveness, the percentage of participants employed 

for 90 days and then for 270 days. We also encouraged VA to continue to work with its federal partners, including the Departments 

of Labor and Education, to develop better common measures of the 

effectiveness of voc rehab.

 This concludes my remarks, and I’d be happy to answer your questions.
18

[The statement of Ms. Bascetta appears on p. 44]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Let me start. As far as levels 

of cooperation between the voc rehab staffs at the regional offices and 

the Department of Labor’s network of disabled veterans outreach program specialists and local veterans employment reps in each state, 

are you finding that the level of cooperation, is it staying the same? 

Is it increasing, decreasing?

 Ms. Bascetta. We have not looked at that recently, but I could note 

that the task force report from last year found that they were still not 

working together very well. And as I’m sure you are aware, this is a 

long-standing problem. We noted it in our first report on VR&E back 

in 1984.

 Some locations, however, according to the task force, do work well 

together, and they found that one of the problems was that the Department of Labor programs don’t require any standardized processes to work with their VA counterparts. And as a result, there’s a 

great deal of inconsistency across the nation. But in some locations, 

the task force had noted that different federal agencies were working 

well together.

 We have some broader concerns about VA working well with all 

its federal partners, including the state vocational rehabilitation 

agencies. And I guess I’d just observe that it’s possible that through 

the development of the common measures, which is in a pretty early 

stage right now, perhaps this collaboration would improve.

 Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you. As a result of the -- you mentioned 

the task force recommendations -- VA added specialists to the skills 

mix and services provided by VR&E. I think voc rehab has hired 

over 50 employment specialists nationwide. Should the employment 

specialist be primarily a job finder or VR&E’s link to the veterans’ 

employment and training services network of disabled veterans outreach program specialists and local veterans employment representatives?

 Ms. Bascetta. That’s a good question. I think ultimately what 

we want to do is get the veteran hooked up with the person who is 

connected to the employer. In other words, we really are looking 

for -- whether it’s in the VR&E service itself, or whether it’s in concert with the DVOPs and the LVERs, while indirect training, resume 

preparation, job coaching are all fine, it’s really that job contact with 

an employer that’s needed.

 And I think they need to sort out once they’ve figured out what 

their own workload is how they’re situated in the different locations 

and, you know, after they have a better handle on what the situations 

are in the local economies that they figure out whether they have the 

skills in house to make those contacts or whether they should use the 

DVOPs and LVERs.
19

 Mr. Boozman. Do you have any idea why the voc rehab grads’ performance faded after two years?

 Ms. Bascetta. I would have to go back to that report. I don’t have 

the details at the top of my head right now. I think that part of 

it, though, is simply that oftentimes people with disabilities need to 

have continuing support. And I’m pretty certain that in the state vocational rehabilitation agencies, which is what that report was about, 

follow-up was not part of the program.

 So to the extent that they might have faced difficulties at certain 

milestones in their labor force participation and didn’t get the kind of 

support they needed and didn’t know where to turn to to get it, they 

would exit employment.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. I’ve 

got a specific question that is related but slightly different than the 

chairman’s as it relates to coordination and collaboration by the VA

with other agencies.

 And the chairman’s question focused on Department of Labor. And 

I’d like to focus a little bit on the Department of Defense, and to share 

with you an example, and then more as a segue into you addressing 

this issue and the need for early intervention and the communication 

between the agencies.

 When I was up at Walter Reed Hospital visiting with a young man 

from South Dakota, Elk Point, South Dakota, had graduated from 

West Point last spring, the spring of last year, and then became the 

head of this battalion in Iraq, was part of the Fallujah campaign, and 

was severely injured, and was receiving treatment at Walter Reed. I

went there to visit with him, and he was inquiring, since he was going 

to be going home for Thanksgiving, how he would go about the best 

route to go about getting a ramp at their home to assist him in what 

those short-term needs were going to be while he was home before he 

returned to Walter Reed for another three surgeries.

 And we were talking with the official that was accompanying us 

during our trip to Walter Reed, and there was this discussion that 

took place about the fact that since he was still active duty, that the 

VA was going to be limited in what they could do perhaps, or there 

was going to have to be some sort of coordination or some sort of process whereby the VA was dealing with the DoD and the timeframe 

that that was going to occur. And so I ended up encouraging his 

mother to just contact our president with the DAV in Sioux Falls, 

who could be of some assistance in the short term.

 But we had another lengthier discussion then just about this transition for those suffering disabilities, that process and that timetable 

whereby they have to make a decision whether or not they’re going to 

stay active duty and come under the DoD versus making a decision 

to leave the service and to then start accessing care and programs 
20

from the VA.

 And so the need for early intervention, in addition to your report 

and findings of this month, you had a report in January of this year 

that dealt precisely with this collaboration that’s needed to expedite 

the services for seriously injured servicemembers. And so in your 

opinion, has any progress been made on this matter since January?

 Ms. Bascetta. To my knowledge, VA and DoD have still not signed 

the Memorandum of Understanding that would allow them to share 

what we view as some of the most basic data that VA would need to 

do a systematic job in keeping track of servicemembers or servicemembers who transition to veteran status who would need VA’s services and who could benefit from their services.

 But they are still actively working on the MOU. I hope that, shortly 

it will be agreed upon, but it has been more than a year.

 Ms. Herseth. Thanks for sharing that information with us. In the 

process of examining and evaluating the VR&E program, has GAO

encountered any programmatic issues that may need legislative remedies?

 Ms. Bascetta. I don’t recall any. I would like to look back at our 

reports though and answer more fully for the record. None of our reports recommend legislative remedies, In addition, the task force did 

not make recommendations that required legislative change.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.

 Ms. Bascetta. Mm-hmm.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Brown-Waite?

 Ms. Brown-Waite. Perhaps I should ask this question of the next 

witness from the VA, but what exactly is the problem? What are the 

stumbling blocks on the Memorandum of Agreement between DoD

and VA?

 Ms. Bascetta. To our knowledge, and unfortunately, it has been 

very difficult to get clear information, primarily from DoD, there are 

two obstacles that we reported on in January.

 The first is that DoD was concerned about retention. They were 

concerned that if the VA approached servicemembers while they were 

still on active duty status and outreached to them about VA benefits 

that they might choose to leave the service.

 The other issue was HIPAA and the Privacy Act, and that was with 

regard to sharing health information. So part of what they were trying to do in the MOU was to ask only for names and SSNs and much 

less on health care information unless they knew that the veteran 

was going to actually transfer to the VA, in which case they could get 

that information if the veteran or, you know, still servicemember, 

signed a release, or they could get the information under continuity 

of care.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Evans?

 Mr. Evans. No questions.
21

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you all very much for your testimony, and we 

appreciate your hard work.

 Ms. Bascetta. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Our final panel is from the VA and is 

comprised of Ms. Judy Caden, Director of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, and is accompanied by Mr. Jerry 

Braun, her Deputy Director, and Mr. Michael McLendon, a Deputy 

Assistant Director for VA Policy, who was a member of the Voc Rehab 

and Employment Task Force.

 We welcome you here. I understand that this is your first time 

to testify as the head of the voc rehab. Well, we have something in 

common. This is my first -- 

 Ms. Caden. Good.

 Mr. Boozman. -- outing as chairman of the committee. So, go ahead, 

proceed.

 Ms. Caden. Great. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. It’s good to have you here.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH CADEN, DIRECTOR, VOCATION-

 AL REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM,

 VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPAN- 

 IED BY JERRY BRAUN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND 

 MICHAEL MCLENDON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE-

 TARY FOR POLICY

 Ms. Caden. Thank you, and thank you for providing me with this 

opportunity. I’ll begin by discussing the progress we’ve made on implementing the VR&E Task Force recommendations, and then I’m 

going to discuss how we’re partnering with DOL and the VETS program, and then finally just give you a summary of the state of the 

VR&E program today.

 Fifty-one of the more than 100 recommendations submitted by the 

Task Force have been implemented, and the single most important 

recommendation and the cornerstone of the Task Force’s blueprint for 

redesigning the VR&E program is that of the 5-Track Employment 

Model. This improved approach refocuses us, the VR&E program, on 

the main goal of employment.

 To prepare for national implementation of the 5-Track Employment 

Model, we have established job resource labs at four of our regional 

offices, which are piloting the new focus. A 30-minute video has been 

developed to provide an orientation and ensure that veterans receive 

clear, concise and accurate information about the program.

 Specialized training for the new employment coordinators at the 

pilot sites has been completed, and we’ve recently purchased a webbased tool to assist in the delivery of effective employment services 

within those labs.
22

 This tool will assist veterans to develop their interview, resume 

preparation skills, and it will also help them research the job market 

in their area, career fields and potential employers. We expect national deployment of the 5-Track Employment Model to begin early 

in Fiscal Year 2006.

 The Task Force recommended redesigning VR&E’s central office 

staff, and central office positions have been created to focus on employment, independent living services, training and outreach activities, contract management, policy development and data collection 

and analysis.

 The Task Force recommended the continued use of trained professional contract counselors, improved management of contract services, and improve the administration of the Disabled Transition Assistance Program or DTAP.

 We have put in place a contract management training program for 

field staff that requires annual skills updates and certification, and in 

January, we distributed to the field stations a quick reference guide 

called a Quick Book, highlight the VR&E program. And this enables 

the field staff to present information about the VR&E program to 

separating servicemembers in an easily understood manner. And it’s 

something that they can walk away with.

 To further improve the DTAP briefings, we’ve developed a Powerpoint presentation with an accompanying briefing script. And so 

along with the Powerpoint, the script, the Quick Books and the orientation video that I mentioned, will greatly improve the quality and 

consistency of our outreach briefings for separating servicemembers.

 The Task Force proposed that we improve training and seek partnerships to help us deliver this benefit. We’ve conducted training 

for field managers on policy, procedures and data analysis. We have 

had week-long classes on independent living and self-employment. 

We have done satellite broadcasts for the field and also for DOL field 

people on traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury and PTSD.

 We are actively seeking to partner with a wide variety of organizations. We’re working with the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, and we have agreements with Home Depot, 

YMCA and Helmets to Hard Hats that focus specifically on employment.

 We’re actively participating with other organizations to strengthen 

our coordination and outreach efforts with the goal of achieving a 

seamless transition for OIF and OEF veterans. And we’re also working with our counterparts in VHA, within the VA, to develop and 

issues policies on priority medical care and services for veterans that 

are participating in the VR&E program.

 We have an ongoing partnership with the Department of Labor. 

We have VR&E staff in the 57 regional offices and more than 100 outbased offices that work very closely with DOL’s DVOPs and LVERs. 
23

There are currently 71 DVOPs and LVERs co-located in 35 of our 

regional offices and in 26 of our outbased locations. And we also have 

VR&E personnel in three of the DOL offices.

 We’ve collaborated with DOL on training for case managers as well 

as for DVOPs and LVERs. We’re working on a draft Memorandum 

of Understanding -- it’s really an updated MOU -- with DOL, and we 

are meeting with them on a frequent basis to look at what we’re doing 

now and what we can do in the future together.

 We think our efforts have proven to be steps in the right direction. 

We’ve seen improvements in the quality, accuracy and timeliness of 

work performed at the field stations.

 I just have a little bit more.

 Mr. Boozman. No, no. Go ahead. You can take whatever time you 

need is fine.

 Ms. Caden. For example, in that area, the average number of days 

that a veteran spends in evaluation and planning status decreased 

from more than 150 days at the end of February ‘04 to less than 120 

days in February of 2005. And in that same period, there was an 

increase in the number of veterans successfully leaving the program 

after completing either their employment or their independent living 

goals. That figure was up from 9,636 at the end of February of ‘04 to 

close to 12,000 at the end of February of 2005. So we think the initiatives we have going on and what we have planned will continue to 

have a positive impact on the services we provide.

 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I’d be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other members might have.

[The statement of Ms. Caden appears on p. 61]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we 

really do appreciate your hard work. I know you and your staff are 

working very hard to solve some of these problems.

 I understand recently that you met with a company looking into 

hiring disabled veterans. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

 Ms. Caden. We did. In fact, we’ve been approached by a number of 

companies, and it’s proven to be very fruitful, but yesterday we met 

with a company that they specifically run call centers, but they’re 

looking to partner with other companies with other types of jobs in 

managerial positions.

 But what intrigued me and another member of my staff the most 

was for the veterans that we have in our independent living program, 

that employment right now isn’t feasible, isn’t the right approach, 

but we would hope down the road, when they mentioned that with a 

call center you can do the work at home, that clicked. And so we’re 

definitely going to look at that and try and pursue that and maybe get 

some of the independent living.
24

 I think as we heard the gentleman from PVA mention, that that 

would be something that might really benefit some people, and that’s 

a group we really need to concentrate on. So I think it will be really 

helpful in the future.

 Mr. Boozman. The regional office voc rehab staffs, do they have 

a formal relationship with the state adjutant generals, or how does 

that work?

 Ms. Caden. We have -- it varies from office to office. About 45 of 

our offices have formal agreements with the state programs, working 

with the DVOPs and the LVERs. What I hope to get out of this next 

generation of the Memorandum of Understanding with DOL is that 

we’ll have that everywhere, and that we will strength that relationship and basically make it a requirement. Pretty much it’s been left 

up to the states.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. McLendon, do you think that the level of data 

collected by all of the VBAs business lines is sufficient to provide rigorous program analysis and evaluation?

 Mr. McLendon. I think the simple answer to that question is no. 

Historically, if you go back and look at the various reports that our 

friends from the General Accounting Office have written about VA 

and a lot of internal reports from VA that one of the issues that’s 

always been a challenge for us has been data.

 And there’s been quite a bit of work that has been done in the last 

couple of years to try to begin to address that program. In VBA, 

they’ve invested quite a bit in IT modernization to work on those issues. VHA of course has got VISTA and a lot of systems. But, Mr. 

Chairman, that remains one of our challenges.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth?

 Ms. Herseth. I’ll just echo the appreciation that the chairman 

expressed for the work that you do on behalf of our veterans and 

their families and with all of the folks that work with you out of the 

regional offices around the country.

 I’ll just start out with -- I’ve got a couple of questions, but I’ll just 

start out with the one that I posed a little bit earlier to the prior panel, 

and that is, Ms. Caden, can you say today, and are you in a position, 

the folks that you work with there at the VA, if the Memorandum of 

Understanding with the DoD was sort of in front of us today, is the 

VA ready to sign it?

 Ms. Caden. I checked on that before I came here today, and my 

understanding, it is ready to be signed. I think that we have cleared 

the hurdles with both DoD and at VA, our own, and I’m told it should 

be signed any time.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay. If you could, just as soon as it is, or if you 

have any updated information to share with the chairman and other 

members --

 Ms. Caden. Sure. Absolutely.
25

 Ms. Herseth. -- of the committee, I’d appreciate that.

 Ms. Caden. Absolutely.

 Ms. Herseth. And could you discuss the staffing, both short-term 

and long-term staffing plans? Because I’m a little concerned, and I 

think part of what we discussed with the first panel was this need for 

follow-up with newly injured servicemembers.

 And part of the discussions we had in a very productive way with 

the chairman of the full committee and with Mr. Boozman and myself about the full-time employees to make sure that we were able to 

request retaining the 14 or so that had been proposed to be cut out of 

the administration’s proposed budget.

 But I’m concerned that, you know, that we have the adequate 

resources so as not to hinder the full implementation of the Task 

Force’s recommendations, and to particularly address this issue of 

follow-up in the outreach in addition to administering the programs, 

particularly in light of plans set forth five, six years ago for attrition 

of those who may retire and the need now to pass along that wisdom 

and institutional expertise to new full-time employees to take over 

the program.

 Ms. Caden. Okay. A couple different things I can say in there. First 

of all, I would like to address the follow-up issue.

 We recently put in place a requirement -- we did it in March in a 

letter that went out to all the field stations, and specifically for VR&E 

requiring follow-up with OIF/OEF individuals who have at the point 

we do that initial contact with them, if they decline VR&E services 

because of their medical issues, it’s not the right point in their life to 

start the program, that we are requiring follow-up within one year.

 And it can happen earlier, it could happen at several times during 

that year, but we are requiring our VR&E staff in the field to perform that follow-up, because we don’t want to lose anybody, and we 

do want them to remember that the program is there for them when 

they’re able to take advantage of it.

 As far as staffing goes, we’re not losing any. We’re not gaining a 

lot right now, but we think we’re in a good place. As we roll out the 

5-Track model and we see how that works, we will be probably looking to leverage maybe some of the Task Force recommendations for 

staffing. They recommended an increase of about 200 FTE for the 

VR&E program.

 They recommended an increase in central office staff which I was 

able to increase my staff by about 10 to get us the expertise we needed in those areas I mentioned of independent living, outreach, data 

analysis and that type of thing, and employment of course.

 But I think the most important area we want to look at is that 

employment coordinator position that we are going to be testing that 

will have to work with DOL, with the LEVRs and the DVOPs, and 

we’ll see how that rolls out and how successful it is. And at that 
26

point, we’ll see what we need in that area.

 Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that. I was hoping maybe we’ll still 

see some sort of increase, but given those recommendations, and as 

you’ve heard from some of the other questions posed, particularly 

with the National Guard and Reserve, I think there are just some 

unique issues there as it relates to outreach and administering the 

programs and when that follow-up occurs.

 And I appreciate the fact that there is a requirement now just to 

-- there’s just so much going on with these folks.

 Ms. Caden. Absolutely.

 Ms. Herseth. That it’s important to let them ease into things and 

reevaluate what their needs and what they might want to take advantage of with the programs available.

 And if I might, I think the time is running short, but one last 

question. You made reference to the independent living program as 

it relates to some of the companies that have approached you and 

that you’re in conversations with. How does the independent living 

program fit into VR&E’s future plans beyond what you’ve discussed? 

And do you support an increase to the annual cap on participants?

 Ms. Caden. We’re looking at the annual cap all the time, and we 

haven’t gone over it, and sometimes that’s because we’re very careful 

towards the end of a fiscal year, we will be watching it.

 And I think this year will be very important to watch, because with 

more people coming back from OIF/OEF, there may be a need_and 

I would like to be able to get back to you on that as we watch our 

numbers and look at where we’re going. And the independent living 

is a very important part of our program. It’s one of the five tracks. 

And we’re trying to concentrate on it, but we also want to keep employment as a goal. And so we really want to work and see how that 

works out. That’s why this conversation we had yesterday on a call 

center was quite interesting.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Evans?

 Mr. Evans. No questions.

 Mr. Boozman. Let me follow up a little bit, and Ms. Herseth, if she’d 

like to follow up also it would be great. The Task Force recommended 

that the VBA field offices revise the resource allocation model to base 

the regional offices’ funding for contract services on local estimates of 

the volume and types of services and the actual cost of the services 

rather than the RO’s percentage of the national workload.

 I guess my question is, can you tell us, how you allocate things now, 

so we can better understand? And then, two, if you’ve implemented 

this change, and if so, great. You know, if you haven’t, what’s the 

deal, or?

 Ms. Caden. Okay. I’m probably going to turn over this to Dr. Braun, 

because he’s been on the team that’s worked on the resource alloca-
27

tion. But just very quickly, it’s a joint effort done -- my staff, central 

office staff, works with our office of field operations. And, Jerry, do 

you want to talk a little bit about the process?

 Mr. Braun. There’s two VR&E field officers, field managers that 

are on the resource allocation management team, as well as the folks 

representative from central office.

 Currently, that’s -- the percentage of workload is a prime indicator 

in terms of what resources are allocated both in the contract arena as 

well as in the FTE arena. Among the factors we look at are pending 

workload as well as outcome-type factors.

 The concept of inviting -- and as Mrs. Caden referenced, this team 

meets once a year prior to the fiscal year, the new fiscal year, the 

concept of inviting the input of the field in terms of what they spent 

last year, what they expect to spend in the upcoming years, and what 

their special needs are, will be incorporated into our -- this year’s 

summer meeting on the matter.

 Ms. Caden. Just to follow up, we do look at what they spent in the 

past year. This year we’ll probably delve into that in some more detail.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth? I want to thank all of the witnesses 

who came here today. We’ve heard about some really good successes 

and some challenges facing the voc rehab and employment program 

and suggestions on how the program can improve.

 I think we can note with pleasure the examples of VR&E, VETS

cooperation. I would offer that the GAO’s comments and continual 

findings concerning the VR&E’s inability to put disabled vets in jobs 

and the lack of the necessary staff skills to meet that goal is somewhat troubling. And while progress is being made, I hope that the 

VA will accelerate its efforts to achieve a more transparent relationship with VETS.

 I don’t think anyone expects VA Voc Rehab to replicate the services offered by the Department of Labor’s VETS. Rather, it’s common sense that VR&E develop a close working relationship with the 

VETS national staff and the regional office staff blends their operations with the DVOPs and LVERs.

 I look forward to significant progress in the future. And we would 

appreciate you mentioned the Memorandum of Understanding. If 

you could send that over. And I feel like we need to have a signing, 

where we can all get together and you can give us each a pen. In fact, 

you ought to do that, is sign a little bit and just sign with -- so we can 

all have a pen that you do it with.

 So, we want to assure you that we’re going to press the Department 

of Labor to meet its obligations in its regard also.

 I want to thank the testimony of Mr. Forney and especially in the 

sense of coming over. I want to thank him for his service. And then 

also I’d like say that any member of the committee also has the op-
28

portunity to submit written statements.

 Ms. Herseth?

 Ms. Herseth. Again, thank you, all of you for being here, those 

that testified on today’s panels and those that are here as advocates 

for and concerned about our nation’s veterans. I think as it relates 

to the fact that this is our first Subcommittee hearing with this new 

committee is an important one to ask these types of questions to see 

what the progress has been in light of the Task Force recommendations, in light of the need for making limited resources go as far as we 

can make them go.

 And it’s the coordination and communication between agencies like 

the Department of Labor and like the Department of Defense that 

are going to help us in that respect, and so I appreciate getting some 

updated information on those two areas in particular.

 But thank you for your work. We’ll look forward to working with 

you in the future. And in the questions that we all posed today, as 

you come across information that you think may be helpful to us or 

to our staffs, if you could forward that along to maintain kind of this 

ongoing dialogue on particularly the primary issues we focused on 

today in the VR&E program.

 Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

 [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
(29)

APPENDIX

HONORABLE JOHN BOOZMAN

REMARKS

April 20, 2005

 Good afternoon. The first hearing of the Economic Opportunity 

Subcommittee will come to order. 

 Before we begin, I would like to introduce the members of the Subcommittee and share my thoughts on what this Subcommittee should 

be about.

 The Ranking Member is Ms Stephanie Herseth who represents the 

whole state of South Dakota. She’s been a member of the Veterans 

Committee since winning a special election and I am very pleased to 

have her as the Ranking Member and look forward to working with 

her.

 On this side of the aisle, Ms Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida’s 

5th district is the Vice Chair and she has proven to be a true advocate for veterans. I’m very glad to have her aboard and welcome her 

counsel.

 I am especially pleased that the Ranking Member of the full committee will be joining us. Lane Evans is no stranger to veterans issues and his voice will be a valuable addition to our work.

 Richard Baker is from the 6th district in Louisiana and as the 

Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, brings a great understanding of how VA loan guaranty programs relate to real estate and financial markets.

 Ms. Darlene Hooley comes to us from the 5th district of Oregon. 

She brings a broad range of expertise in education, healthcare and 

finance to the subcommittee and I appreciate her past work on behalf 

of veterans.

 Our final member is a 2nd term member from California’s 21st district, Devin Nunes. He was raised on a family farm and is a man who 

knows what it is like to grow up with dirt under his finger nails and 

the value of those who are close to this great nation’s soil. Welcome 

aboard.

 The Subcommittee’s title says what we are going to be about...improving the economic opportunities for veterans. While the Economic 

Opportunity Subcommittee has jurisdiction over several other programs and will not ignore them, I intend to focus on the programs 

run by the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment service and 
30

the Veterans Employment and Training Service.

 That means we are going to look closely, with the help of GAO, at 

the programs designed to put veterans to work or achieve a maximum degree of independent living. It also means that VA and DOL

must gather the data necessary for them and us to determine the effectiveness of 

existing programs and to justify any new start.

 I strongly believe the Voc Rehab and Employment program should 

be the crown jewel of VA programs. As such, it is vital that VA leadership place increased emphasis on the program’s performance, especially in relation to its integration with the Department of Labor’s 

programs managed by the Veterans Employment and Training Service. I note the presence of the word employment in the title of both 

programs and if we accomplish nothing else, I want to see the two so 

closely tied as to be transparent to the disabled veteran.

 Labor’s VETS has a special obligation to our veterans. We have 

vested them with the responsibility of finding good jobs for unemployed and disabled veterans. I have many questions about how well 

VETS is doing in that respect and we will have an oversight hearing 

to determine their performance in the near future as well as the performance of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, a grant 

program designed to get homeless vets off the streets and get them 

ready to reenter the workforce.

 The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) also 

fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. I want to make sure 

that these important laws continue to protect the rights and responsibilities of our returning servicemembers and we will do just that.

 The GI Bill is perhaps the most famous piece of veterans’ legislation and I look forward to ensuring it meets the goals of preparing 

veterans for a lifetime of productive citizenship.

 Finally, the Loan Guaranty program has a distinguished history of 

improving home ownership by veterans. VA does a good job running 

the program and my goal is to ensure that no one tarnishes that record. Additionally, I want to look very closely at programs that make 

it easier for disabled veterans to not only buy a home, but also live 

comfortably in that home.

 I now recognize the Ranking Member for any remarks she may 

have.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123