Testimony of Stephen A. Horton Manager, Employment Security Program Services Alabama State Employment Service Department of Industrial Relations State of Alabama On H.R. 4765-the 21st Century Veterans Employment and Training Act Before the Subcommittee on Benefits Committee on Veteran’s Affairs United States House of Representatives July 12, 2000
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to offer the following testimony on the 21st Century Veterans Employment and Training Act. My name is Steve Horton and I represent the Alabama State Employment Service which is the Wagner-Peyser grantee and the provider of veteran services under the current Title 38 chapters 41 and 42. I am a special disabled Vietnam Veteran and the recipient of three Purple Hearts for wounds received in action. I have a deep regard and respect for those individuals we are charged to serve. This proposed legislation appears to be a major step forward in providing the states more flexibility in delivering services to veterans. The current law does not mesh well with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and the system of One-Stop Career Centers required by the Act. The partnerships mandated by WIA, including Veteran Employment Programs, require resource sharing while maintaining eligibility for individual programs. I firmly believe that the states can continue to provide veteran priority for services while enabling staff to better perform their jobs in assisting Veterans and other eligible persons in their search for employment and training. A means by which veteran’s priority for the Federal Contractor Job Listing (FCJL) program is provided through electronic technology is much needed. We support the employer’s ability to self-file job orders but also recognize the need for some method by which veteran’s priority may be established and the states may receive credit for placing veterans in these jobs. The complaint process concerning FCJL and other E&T programs is somewhat unclear in that there does not appear to be any reference to a complainant being first directed to the program’s complaint process. We try to handle all complaints at the lowest level possible, and this does not seem to foster this effort, in fact it seems to suggest that an individual file with VETS first. The requirement for ten additional federal monitors is a troubling issue. Each state has a DVET, and most have ADVETS, which are assigned to each state based on veteran population. Title 38 is perhaps the most closely monitored federally funded program in existence. The state is required to provide space, furniture, phones, utilities, etc., all at no cost to the VETS. The idea of being monitored at every turn and having to pay to house the monitor at your expense is somewhat onerous and should be reviewed. The possible addition of ten more is disturbing to say the least. Another issue is that the legislation appears to remove recently separated veterans as a priority group, at least in Chapter 42. This segment of the veteran population has traditionally had the highest rate of unemployment. I question the rationale behind removing those individuals who seem to be most in need of our services. A common definition between the Chapters of Title 38 and WIA is very important. Front line personnel need to be able to quickly determine which applicant is eligible for what services. The data and the reporting systems do not support several different definitions of a veteran. We need less confusion, especially at the local service delivery points. The performance standards and outcome measures have needed reform for quite some time. It is becoming more and more difficult to find and to provide services to Vietnam Era Veterans. As this population ages, their number in the civilian labor force will continue to decline. Our obligation to these veterans remains but requiring specific performance measures for them is perhaps unnecessary. A weighted job placement system that gives more reward for assisting those veterans with significant barriers is welcome. It should be recognized that these individuals require a large amount of staff time and this should be reflected in the standards. The economic and unemployment conditions of individual states are also very important factors. I hope that the states have input into this process. The establishment of a panel of state public employment service officials for the demonstration project is an excellent idea. The ability to have input into a system from those individuals who actually operate the program at the local level should give policy makers more insight into what really goes on at the service delivery points. I am unclear if this demonstration project replaces the current program or is an addition to it. Funding for the Veterans Program has been inadequate for a long time. The formula for funding DVOPS and LVERS has not been followed for years. The effort the states must go through in developing the grant package when we know we will not receive that amount of funding is time consuming, expensive, and extremely frustrating. Serious consideration should be given to changing this grant from a staffing grant to a program grant. It is unclear whether this was the intent of this legislation. Changing from a fiscal year to a program year, which would match other employment and training programs, would also be of benefit. The restrictions placed on states with a staffing grant makes planning very difficult. The recapture of unspent funds at the end of each quarter by VETS encourages states to develop ways to front or end load their programs, depending on their situation, in an attempt to evade the recapture process. The staffing grant also limits the state’s ability to purchase computers or provide training for the DVOP and LVER staff. An incentive grant to reward those states who do well and a system to assist others who do not perform up to standards is a welcome idea; as stated by Mr. Mike Olen from Texas, "No reward for success and no penalty for failure." I do not see how an incentive grant program will work with a staffing grant and the ability of VETS to recapture funds at the end of each quarter. State merit systems do not move quickly at times and often it may take several months to hire new employees. The ability to carry over funds from one program year to the next and the flexibility of a block grant would increase the states’ ability to serve veterans more cost effectively. A review of DVOP and LVER duties and assignments is greatly needed. The current law is so specific that virtually no flexibility exists in assigning job duties. The states are well prepared to ensure that staff are performing their duties and that monies are spent on those who are eligible for those services. Electronic data collection tracks all service transactions so that the states and those who monitor the states are aware of what staff are performing which functions and whom they are serving. The Veterans Service Organizations are commended for their efforts in assisting veterans and we welcome the opportunity to assist them in setting up electronic access to employment and training information at their posts or other sites. Thank you again for this opportunity to address issues that are close to my state and me. Your efforts to improve this delivery system are commendable. I would welcome any questions. Back to Witness List |