'NCOt-'-tTCOOI^ —



,â–  CO r^ i/> 10 <o" co' oV 1- u, i_, ^ ou ,-
<DTrmo>«-cM{or~r>-^^Trcocn(



"* " - - — i£> o' ^ CO T- TT CO '^" in csT o' o" o> o" r-' a> (D to co" oo" C7>* rg"



â– r- CO a> m in CO



coio»-a>rsi<oco(£)CN

vvnr^ a>(Dco ^— 05r-

, a> o o CO CO T-" 00' CN .»-"

[ oor^o^-r^cNcoo

T-cNor^ooT-r^-^



(D CO CV â– ^



^r^-i — rcocNJcoin
_ ocoootD'"-— -

fo_aDr^CNjh^r>.fOT-
r^ '— i/i ro to rs/ r-"



s« 5



(-1 -=; '^
O 3 CM



raCQ

â– SO ra
50-0

i 8 i f






< cnZ ^_ 00



ra 1- t- — 2 ■



- i -g

O roT3
oj .2 0)

2 o g

Q- > O



â– S 7 -^

+ y —I

9 t- D-

-^< UJ Q
S ^- < t^



~ Q o)



: CD



w



o2'



I o UJ ^

I Q. UJ ce



^ c -^ rS :? ^

U.bQj(J<tNU>«

o <u5Q2f^ >.>

l-Q-UJUjQ ^TTTT

CCCeJgJ^^cxtrr



?-° 5



t 0) O 0)

^U. U. Q.
lO i S S



UJ —

> £§

"J s. â„¢

UJ ^ c

CO ^ _

ic|

—i , <ij
< T-Q

Ou. 3



100



July 7, 1994



Honorable G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery

Chairman

Committee on Veterans Affairs

U.S. House of Representatives

2184 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515-2403

Dear Chairman Montgomery:

This will acknowledge receipt of your recent letter
requesting we respond to additional questions as a follow up to
the Subcommittee on Education, Training and Employment hearing
of June 15, 1994. As requested, the following answers are
provided consecutively, preceded by the question in its entirety.

1 . One of the VETS ad hoc teams has suggested that the
residency requirement for State Directors be eliminated.

I think this is a good recommendation. Would your
organization support it? If not, why not?

The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) has for many years
supported the elimination of the residency requirement for
State and Assistant Directors of VETS. It is anticipated
that a resolution will be put forth at our upcoming
National Convention calling for the elimination of the
residency requirement.

2. Which of the reinvention proposals made by the ad hoc
teams woiild your organization like to see immediately
implemented?

Which would your organization oppose? Why?

At this point we have not had an adequate opportunity to
review all of the "reinvention proposals." However, we did
attach to our June 15, 1994 statement a letter to Assistant
Secretary Preston Taylor regarding some of our concerns. I
would refer to that letter as a partial response to this
question.

3. Where one-stop centers are administered by entities otJier
than the ES, where will DVOPs and LVERs be physically located?
Whom will they report to? What impact will tliese changes have on
the current performance measurement system?

This question results in more questions than answers. We
are concerned there appears to be no provision for
LVER/DVOP functions in the one-stop centers. How will
their functions be integrated into the larger program?
Will only "eligible" veterans be referred to or from the
LVER/DVOP? Will there be a veterans' priority of service in
the one- stop centers? What assurance is there that their
function will not be modified to meet the agency staffing
needs rather than provide priority veteran services? This
last concern is exacerbated by the provision contained in
the Reemployment Act which would allow the Secretary to
waive the provisions of Title 38 USC. We believe that if
that section is enacted into law LVER and DVOP duties will
be modified to meet the agency staffing needs rather than
veterans needs.



101



(2)



4. What, in your review, is the greatest impediment to
providing veterans with effective employment and training
services?

What changes would you recommend that would improve
employment and training services to veterans?

The greatest impediment to providing veterans with
employment and training services is the Department of
Labor's (DOLs) failure to recognize the need for such
services; failure to take the lead in promoting the need
for these services; and the failure to clearly set out how
DOL and its grantees will meet their obligation under the
law.

The DOL and VETS must identify effective transportable
service delivery models and through regulations, policy
statements, instructions, informational bulletins, and
training provide for the adoption of these models. The
models would have to be considerate of employment service
office size, demographics of popvilation to be served,
employer community and local economy.

The DOL's failure to provide a leadership role in
defining and promoting Veterans' Employment & Training
Service (VETS) needs has fostered a "stepchild" like
environment .

While the current Assistant Secretary reports increased
access to the Secretary of Labor there appears to be no
measurable results in terms of new program focus, priority
of service, or initiatives for disabled or recently
discharged veterans. In fact, there appears to be little
or no awareness of veterans' employment and training needs
in the one-stop centers proposed by this administration.
The Secretary of Labor's Veterans' Advisory Committee
mandated over three years ago has yet to be established.
Further elaboration is contained in my June 15, 1994
statement .

5. Do you support the proposal by the reinvention team to
Increase VETS staff responsibility for grant activities?

We have no opinion or position on this concept.

6. Do you object to the recommendation to eliminate the
requirement that DVETs and ADVETs have veteran status?

The DAV supports the continuation of the requirement that
DVETS and ADVETS must be veterans. Accordingly, we
would strenuously object to eliminating veteran status.

7. What are your views on the NPR proposal to eliminate
VETS' Area Directors?

As long as the DOL maintains ten federal regional offices
and each of those contain a Regional Administrator for the
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) the DAV
supports the continuation of ten regional administrators
for VETS.

Because DOL operations depend on the Regional
Administrators who have considerable authority, it is
imperative that a lateral peer system of Regional
Administrators for VETS be in place.



102



(3)



It is critical that these Regional Administrators have
access to veterans services authorized in their regional
office as they make decisions which will affect the
provisions of services in the local office. Because of the
failure of national DOL leadership, the VETS regional
administrator function is much more critical.

8. What impact, in your judgment, would H.R. 4050 have on the
provision of quality employment and training services for
veterans?

Our written testimony submitted for the record on June 15,
1994 sets out our concerns on H.R. 4050.

9. What do you see as the most significant differences between
the way employment and training services are provided now, which
are primarily through public employment service offices, as
compared to how they may be provided under a new delivery system
that may have different delivery entities all across the
country?

Our primary concern is with ensuring that tlie legal
mandates currently codified in Title 38 USC are adequately
articulated, monitored, and when necessary corrective
action taken when any violation occurs. We are not
satisfied that this happens under current statute and
believe that under H.R. 4050 the monitoring and enforcement
functions will further deteriorate.

10. According to H.R. 4050, and specifically the provision of
services under one- stop centers, there will probably be a
multiplicity of service providers administering the one-stop
centers. Where those centers are administered by an entity
other than the Employment Service, what will be the impact on
the quality and quantity of services provided to veterans?

My concern is that we now have a public employment system
that has had decades of experience in providing priority
services to this one group called "veterans." Other employment
and training entities, such as JTPA, the education community,
and those in the private sector, who may be interested in
running one-stop centers have not the same experience or
commitment to serving our nation's veterans. Again, what does
this mean for our veterans who need help?

If DOL does not make veterans services a priority with
strict compliance and enforcement in one-stop centers it
will be irrelevant whether those centers are administered
by the current employment service or an entity other than
the employment service. Veterans will tend to become
another "client" without special emphasis or status. We
have found in other employment and training programs svich
as the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) that unless
veterans are identified as a specific target group any
service provided to them will be coincidental and not
because of their veteran status.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to
respond to these additional questions.

>iiicerely.



^0^.a£(£ 1^0^^^^^



WNALD W. DRACH
National Employment Director



103



Subcommittee on Education, Training

and Employment

Answers to follow-up questions from Hearing June 15, 1994

by: Brcnda Glenn

Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. (VVA)



1. Q: One of the VETS ad hoc teams has suggested that the residency requirement for
State E>irectors be eliminated. Why or why not would organizations support this?

A: WA would strongly recommend adoption of elimination of the residency
requirement for not only the State Directors, but for all DOL VETS staff. This would
ensure that the best qualified person be hired for a position regardless of where the person
is from. With conditions as they presently exist, if a very qualified person is interested in a
position with DOL VETS, that person can not even be considered if they live in another
geographical area. Thus a less qualified person may be hired simply because they meet the
residency requirement. That does not serve the vererans best.

2. Q: Which of the reinvention proposals made by the ad hoc team would your
organization like to see immediately implemented? Which would organization oppose?
Why?

A; To be honest I personally have not seen all the proposals, and do not feel qualified
to answer this question adequately.

3. Q: Where one-stop centers are administered by entities other than ES, where will
DVOPs and LVERs be physically located? Whom will they report to? What impact will
these changes have on the current performance measurement system?

A: If and when one-stop centers are administered by entities other than ES, it is the
opmion ot VVA that veteran employment will be severely impeded. However, if that does
occur, it is recommended that DVOPs and LVERs be physically located at the one-stop
centers if agreeable to the private entities, however, if that is not possible, perhaps they
could be located with the County Veteran Service Office. They would report to the DOL
VETS. The above recommendation would severely compromise the current performance
measurement system. While the majority of DVOPs and LVERs are dedicated and caring
individuals, there are those who would not perform adequately without proper on-site
supervision. Additionally, without DVOPs and LVERs on site of one-stop centers, then
veterans will be penalized by not having all services available to them. It is not feasible that
the above situation could have any positive result on veterans.

4. Q: What is the greatest impediment to providing veterans with effective employment
and training services? What changes would improve employment and training services to
veterans?



A: No disrespect intended, but the greatest impediment to providing veterans with
effective employment and training services is the constant threat fi-om congressional action
that DVOPs, LVERs, DOL VETS and NVTI might not continue to be funded or be
continued at all. These are things that affect the staff working with veterans and thereby
they affect the veterans. Additionally, employers are not presently in danger of any
adverse action if they do not give veterans preference. In essence, veterans preference is
an ignored law. If a company is investigated for violation of veteran preference by the
DOL, there is no enforcement teeth to ensure vet preference is guaranteed. One of the
biggest advantages to veterans employment would be a nation-wide commitment to enforce
veterans preference. In addition, if the DOL VETS, DVOPs. LVERs and NVTI were
funded for a significant period of time, say five years at a time; many concerns could be
put to rest and thereby allow those of us working for veterans concentrate on veterans
employment issues, not on whether we will be unemployed ourselves in the near fiiUire.
The other suggestion for making veterans employment more successful and efScient is to
invest in quality, nationwide PSA's informing employers of the advantages of hiring
veterans, and also informing them of the laws concerning veterans preference.



104



Subcommittee on Education, Training

and Employment

Answers to foUow-up questions from Hearing June 15, 1994

by: Brenda Glenn

Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. (W A)

PAGE 2 - CONTINUED



5. Q: Do we support the proposal by the reinvention team to increase VETS staff
responsibility for grant activities?

A; Yes. WA feels that the MiTS staff is much more qualified to evaluate and
determine the types of grants necessary, and where the grants are needed.

6. Q: Do you object to the recommendation to eliminate the requirement that DVETs and
ADVETs have veteran status?

A: Absolutely!! How could a non-veteran understand exactly what veteran issues are?
If non-veterans are in these positions how could they possibly relate to the particular
problems that veterans have? It is possibly the most ridicules recommendation to be
presented.

7. Q: What are your views on the NPR proposal to eliminate VETS' Area Directors?

A: With VETS' enforcement strength almost non-exisistant, we have to wonder if less
staff wouldn't just make the problem worse. However, if it is indeed necessary to reduce
the VETS' staff, we feel eliminating some of the VETS' Area Directors would affect
veterans employment the least. As long as state ADVETS and DVETS staffing levels
were maintained.

8. Q: What impact would H.R.. 4050 have on the provision of quality employment and
tiairung services for veterans?

A; If H.R. 4050 remains with the provision that Veterans Preference can be waived it
is the opinion of WA that it would be detrimental to veterans employment and training
services. If the federal law which mandate federal preference can be so easily done away
with then veterans will become just one of the masses and the sacrifices made for the U.S.
will be insignificant. There are parts of the bill that are very good. However, the
provision that allows for employment services being provided by other than public
employment system leaves much to be desired. That provision would virtually eliminate
veterans preference . WA's main concern is that veterans preference may be waived. If
that is removed, and mention of maintaining a consistent veterans preference is made,
WA can and will support the bill, although we would certainly be more supportive if the
provision allowing the services be administered by other entities could be removed.

9. Q: What do you see as the most significant differences between the way employment
and training services are provided now, which are primarily through public employment
service ofiices, as compared lo how they may be provided under a new delivery system
that may have different delivery entities all across the country?

A: It is diflBcult for the author to imagine a system like described above. If services
are provided by a variety of entities how can any uniformity and control be instituted?
Each entity would be able to perform functions as they see fit. There would be no veterans
preference, no quality control on services provided. WA can not in good conscious
support this plan. It would make employment services in general, and veterans
employment services in particular, low quality and ineffective.



105



Subcommittee on Education, Training

and Employment

Answers to follow-up questions from Hearing June 15, 1994

by: Brenda Glenn

Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. (VVA)

PAGE 3 - CONTINUED



10. Q: According to H.R. 4050, and specifically the provision of services under one-stop
centers, there will probably be a multipicity of service providers administering the one-stop
centers, ^^^le^e those centers are administered by an entity other that the employment
service, what will be the impact on the quality and quantity of services provided to
veterans? M)' concern is that \vc now have a public employment system that has had
decades of experience in providing priority services to this one group called "veterans."
Other employment and training entities, such as JTPA, the education community, and
those in the private sector, who may be interested in ruiming one-stop centers have not had
the same experience or commitment to serving our nation's veterans. Again, what does this
mean for our veterans who need help?

A: As stated previously, if the employment service becomes administered by other
entities Veterans will surely lose. JTPA, the education community and private sector
employment agencies are very efficient in what they do, however, they historically have not
given any preference to veterans. As a DVOP I must constantly attempt to ensure that
veteran preference is maintained. However, JTPA is a reluctant participant in veterans
preference. The others, the education community and private sector employment agencies
do not adhere to veterans preference at all, not even reluctantly. I share the concerns
voiced in the above question. The bottom line to the above question, and to all the other
questions is that the veteran will lose. After the sacrifices made, must they really be forced
to sacrifice what employment assistance tliat is now available? How many more sacrifices
must the veteran community to make? It is the opinion of WA that veterans have lost too
many benefits already, must they also lose the very important and vital benefit of having an
edge over the general population in employment practices? VVA does not think so. We
sincerely hope the subcommittee agiees.



o



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY



3 9999 05983 215 2



ISBN 0-16-047018-8



780160"470189



90000