Date: 1984-02-07
Speaker: DONALD L. CUSTIS (democrat)
Chamber: S

Chief Medical Director. Veterans Administration. Washington. D.C. DEAR DoN. as you know. I have had an ongoing interest in the status of the contract between the Veterans Administration and Swords to Plowshares for the provision of readjustment counseling. In this connection. I recently had the opportunity to review the October 28. 1983. opinion of the General Counsel regarding the payment of certain sums under that contract. That opinion includes the following statement: [Wie hope that the confusion and difficulty encountered in connection with the administration of this contract will demonstrate the need for a complete review and evaluation of all contracts now outstanding to provide readjustment counseling. as well as a new awareness within the VA of the need for improved contract management and oversight. I agree wholeheartedly about the need for a "complete review and evaluation of all contracts" and for "improved contract management and oversight". and urge your prompt consideration of these actions. In view of the problems that have come to light regarding the administration of these contracts. I believe it is vitally important at this time that all existing contracts be reviewed to determine which services are being provided and to itch veterans. it Is even more important that the agency. as soon as possible. decide how best to monitor the fee/contract program in the future and then commit the resources necessaryineluding the personnel neededto carry out that task. As successful as the readjustment counseling program has generally been. through the Vet Centers in helping a great many Vietnamera veterans and their families deal more effectively with postwar readjustment difficulties. questions about the feebasis portion of the progrm have persisted from that programs inception. They have now reached a point where. unless satisfactorily resolved. they threaten to undermine the reputation of and support for the entire program. In a May 17. 1982. letter to nre. you stated that "the Readjustment Counseling Service is addressing itself to developing a mechanism for monitoring the (fee/contract] program as to consistency. quality. and costeffectiveness." The current controversy surrounding the Swords to Plowshares contract and numerous reports of similar situations involving other contracts as to which inadequate monitoring of contractors is also alleged would seem to be compelling evidence that the efforts described as being underway eighteen months ago have yet to be successful. In carrying out the review and evaluation called for by the General Counsel. I believe that the agency should. at a minimum. address the following questions: (1) A. Should the monitoring of contracts for readjustment counseling remain with the Readjustment Counseling Service or should some other office in the agency (e.g.. the Office of Procurement and Supply) be given this responsibility? B. If the actual monitoring function is shifted. should the Readjustment Counseling Service remain responsible for providing technical assistance (i.e.. orientation. education. and training assistance) to contractors? (2) In view of the answers to question 1. how many additional FTEE are needed for contract monitoring and how many for technical assistance purposes and where should the personnel be located? (3) What should the general qualifications be for individuals in such positions and should they have prior experience with the Vet Center program? With respect to question 1. I believe there is very strong reason for retaining this responsibility in the Readjustment Counseling Service field locations where the actual counseling experience and the knowledge of local veterans and conditions is so abundant. Also. the very great need for the performance of this technical assistance function for many contractors without extensive Vietnam veteran readjustment counseling experience raises two related questions: Whether the amount of technical assistance required suggests that too many resources are currently being allocated to contract services? Would not it enhance the program if some of these resources were used to expand inhouse efforts over which the agency can exercise greater quality control? With respect to question 2 regarding the number of FIEE needed. I note that. when the responsibility was initially given to the Readjustment Counseling Service to monitor contractors and to provide technical assistance. no additional personnel were assigned to the Vet Center program to carry out these new tasks. This created many situ. atlons around the country In which Vvt Center personnel were forced. to the detri ment of the overall program. to choose bctween carrying out the new responsibilities and fulfilling their other duties. For example. I have been advised that 1he Seattle. Washington. Vet Center teani leader. in aiddition to his team leader responsibiilis. was assigned monitoring and technticat assistance responsibilities with respect to contractors who are located over a wide gem. graphic area and to whom the VA night pay out over $300.000 In one year for couw seling services. Plainly. it is not possible for one person to carry out of fectiely such multiple responsittlities. Thus. if the agency should decide that either the monitoring or the technical assistance responsibility. or both. should remain with the Vet Center program. I believe that it is vital that additional personnel be assigned for such purpose or purposes. (One suggestion that might be considered In the event of such a decision would be to employ former Vet Center personnel particularly those who have been Involved in direct counseling but. who need some relief from the stress of that roleto work with fee/contract providers.) On a related matter. you will recall that we exchanged a number of letters last year and earlier this year that addressed. among other issues. the agencys projection for using fiscal year 1983 readjustment counseling monies for feebasis contracts. In that correspondence and in other ways. I repeatedly urged that steps be taken to avoid spending for nonreadjustment counseling purposes any of the funds that the agency had identified as intended but which were not needed for the fee/contract. program. I deeply regret that this result was not avoided. indeed. it Is doubly regrettable that the purpose of these expenditures bears no direct relationship whatsoever to Veltnamera veterans. As I did last year. I strongly urge that the agency estimateas soon as possiblethe approximate amount that will be expended in the current fiscal year on the fee/contract portion of the program. To the extent that that amount. is less than the $11 million that the agency has noted. In response to questions following our Committees February 16. 1983. hearing on the FY 1984 budget. were to be devoted to such purpose. the agency should promptly determine and thereafter advise the Appropriations and Veterans Affairs Committees in both Houses how it proposes to utilize the balance of those earmarked funds. I very much hope you will move forward on this suggestion immediately. Don. I deeply appreciate your continuing cooperation and assistance and your attention to this particular matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this letter as soon as possible. and would greatly appreciate your addressing specifically each of the points discussed above. With warm regards. Cordially.