TESTIMONY
BY RAYMOND
G. BOLAND SECRETARY WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND
LEGISLATIVE
CHAIRMAN NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION WASHINGTON,
D.C. SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
Mr.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify concerning the evaluation of the Veterans
Employment and Training Service (VETS) program effectiveness and
strategic planning. As
I have mentioned in previous testimony, we support any funding from
the federal government that supports employment and training programs
for our nation's veterans. However,
as was pointed out by the Congressional Commission on Service Members
and Veterans Transition Assistance, the delivery of services under the
VETS is deemed to be inefficient.
We agree with that finding and have witnessed no changes in the
intervening two years since the Commission presented their findings
that would change our minds. In
fact, we have extensively studied other federal employment and
training laws, in particular the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and
have found that while that law and the provisions of Title 38 relating
to VETS may be implemented simultaneously, there exists a
philosophical disconnect between the two. The
intent of the WIA is to create a network of One Stop Job Centers in
every state and to establish a governmental structure for policy
development and guidance. Much
authority and control is vested in the governor who develops the state
plan. The law allows the
governor to determine which state agency will administer the plan.
Next, the plan calls for the creation of workforce development
areas and associated workforce development boards.
A county could be a local board if the plan allows it.
The point is, WIA has within its parameters a lot of
flexibility to enable program implementation, execution and
administration to be vested at the local level. This allows for program content and delivery to be tailored
in order to maximize the benefit.
On the other hand, control and program parameters of VETS are
highly centralized and rigid. Currently,
the USDOL practice of centralized administration of VETS at the
federal level, while diverse agencies are administering other
employment and training programs at the local level, creates a
disconnect in function, creativity, and flexibility.
We well recognize the special place in government for the
provision of benefits intended solely for veterans and we fully
support this purpose. However,
we also recognize the need to work collaboratively with other agencies
and entities to maximize the total array of benefits to which veterans
are entitled. This is
also a recognition of the need to maximize the use of limited
resources and tax dollars. Mr.
Chairman, succinctly stated, the philosophy of the WIA is one of
collaboration, inclusion and execution at the local level. The VETS
program on the other hand, is designed for federal control hidden
under the cloak of providing and preserving exclusive veterans
benefits, but in reality only preserves the status quo; and, as
previously identified by the Commission, the status quo is not
working. In
fact, earlier this year my home state, Wisconsin, attempted to have
the management and administration of the Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER)
program, transferred to the state department of veterans affairs.
The intent was solely for enhancement of coordination and
service delivery. Yet, we received correspondence from the USDOL stating that,
"Given the intrinsic role of the State employment service offices
with respect to DVOP and LVER programs, as dictated by the
requirements of the statute, it would be inconsistent
with Federal law requirements to permit Wisconsin to delegate the
operational control to Wisconsin's State Department of Veterans
Affairs." (Emphasis
added). Mr. Chairman, we believe we know best how to coordinate
services for veterans in Wisconsin and how these services should be
merged into a seamless system. The organizations
that I represent believe we should have a veterans employment and
training program that is outcome based and not process driven.
We strongly believe that various approaches to service delivery
can be demonstrated at the state level and that a "best
practice" will emerge. This
approach is not inconsistent with other federal and state
collaborations that are flourishing.
It is a natural progression and makes sense.
Our ultimate recommendation is for Congress to allow each
governor to decide where veterans employment services are located, how
they operate, and who supervises them—while being accountable for
USDOL performance standards. I
want to point out that just two months ago, the National Governors’
Association at its annual meeting held in State College, PA adopted
its first ever policy agenda for veterans issues.
Veterans employment was addressed and the governors have
recommended they be given more flexibility to provide this service.
I respectfully request that a copy of the NGA position be
entered into the record. Working
with community-based organizations and employers, the states have
achieved a remarkable record in placing former welfare recipients in
the workforce. They were
given the waivers and flexibility they needed and made extensive use
of contracting these services.
Why should we not be able to do as well or better for veterans?
The answer is that we can.
Mr.
Chairman, state government is not the problem with veterans employment
services—in fact we strongly believe that state government should be
an important part of the solution in improving service to our
veterans. Any action that
will build on, or create, federal and state partnerships to achieve
the best results for veterans and that is cost effective, is the path
to be taken. I thank you again for including state government in this hearing. Back to Witness List |