Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the issue of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program (VR&E).  The Global War on Terror has produced a large number of men and women that have served the country and have returned to civilian life with one or more physical and or psychological wounds that creates barriers to entry, or reentry into the civilian workforce.  PVA would like to thank Congress and this Subcommittee for all the support they put forth to help these disabled veterans and all veterans make this transition successful. 

The purpose of the VR&E program as authorized under Chapter 31 of Title 38 USC is to provide comprehensive services to address the employment barriers of service-connected disabled veterans in an effort to achieve maximum independence in daily living, and to obtain and maintain gainful employment.  VR&E also provides services to severely disabled veterans with a goal towards helping them achieve the highest quality of life possible, including future employment when feasible.

Currently, to be eligible for VR&E, the veteran must have been discharged under circumstances other than dishonorable; have a disability rating or memo rating of 10 percent or more, which was incurred in, or aggravated by such service, and be in need of vocational rehabilitation to overcome employment barriers caused by such service-connected disability. VR&E provides for 48 months of entitlement and the program may be utilized within 12 years from the date of initial VA disability rating notification, with an exception for those with a serious employment handicap. 

During the process of testing, evaluating, and preparation of the rehabilitation plan for each qualified veteran, the VR&E program often uses contracted suppliers of these services to supplement their work load.  The VA claim’s that this is the only possible option available to address the needs of veterans in remote geographic areas and provide some of the support functions such as administrating testing procedures.  In an effort to address and administrate the contracting process the VA developed the National Acquisition Strategy (NSA), which had problems from the beginning.  These problems, as discussed in a previous hearing of this Subcommittee, were the result of a misunderstanding of expected goals, and inadequate performance on behalf of parties, VR&E services and the contractors. 

PVA still questions the use of contractors to perform the individual one-on-one work with veterans.  We are concerned that this one-on-one work with the veteran is being contracted out in order for the trained VA counselor to have time to complete required VA paper work.   This is what we have been told by veterans familiar with the program.  If this in fact is true, then this is certainly not the best use of the experienced VA counselor.   Nonetheless, the VA claims that contracting out for services is necessary for VR&E to adequately serve all veterans.

Based on recent discussions with VR&E central office staff, PVA believes the contracting process for services is improving.  All current and future contracting for services involves a clear understanding of the responsibilities as defined for both parties.  In the future if PVA hears of problems with VR&E contracting services, or veterans not being served, we will share this information with the Subcommittee.

One issue that PVA service officers have brought to our attention is that every VA office interprets the regulations pertaining to the vocational rehabilitation program differently.  This fosters inconsistent case management and a lack of accountability.  Recently a spinal cord injured veteran participating in the vocational rehabilitation program had problems with punctual attendance for the prescribed program at a VA facility.  This was due to a physical and medical condition related to his injury.  The veteran was expelled from the program, against the veteran’s wishes, because of his late arrivals.  PVA believes this was a strict interpretation of the regulation for participation in the program.  The veteran has a serious disability, and still wants to work!  The VA should work with the veteran, not against the veteran.

VR&E should be more flexible with providing programs for veterans.  The goal should be employment whenever possible, not just completing a prescribed course.   This should include educational programs and nondegree employment training programs. Moreover, the VA should ensure that the training options offered through VR&E are compatible with the current 21st Century workplace.

Congressional funding for the VR&E programs must keep pace with veterans’ demand for this service.  Our veterans have made a sacrifice for our nation, which is why our leaders must make a concerted effort to ensure that access to education, employment, and training opportunities are available for their transition to the civilian job market.  There is a need for increased funding for staffing for VR&E including the Independent Living (IL) Program.  The current counselor to client ratios is approximately 120 or 130 veterans to one counselor.  This unacceptable ratio puts great pressure on the counselor and negatively impacts the effort spent with each veteran.  The severely injured veteran requires more time and attention.  With many seriously injured service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who will need this assistance, PVA believes the funding should be increased.  Veterans should never be discouraged from participating in VR&E. Although this keeps the demand for services at a lower level, it is not reflective of the current true demand for these services.  Increased funding for the Independent Living program is a necessity.  Many veterans that could qualify for the IL program are never informed of this option.  This keeps the number of new participants to a minimum.  The current cap on the IL program should be removed immediately.  The IL program never exceeds the cap, or comes close to that number.  The cap was placed on IL because it was classified as a pilot program, and the cap would allow VA to better monitor and evaluate the program.  This peacetime cap which received a slight increase recently, is almost unimaginable during a period of extended conflict.

One problem with the VR&E program that the co-authors of The Independent Budget discuss in that publication is the twelve year limit on eligibility.  The disability that a veteran has incurred has no time limit on the restrictions that it imposes on the veteran.  Unfortunately, as time progresses many conditions may worsen and increase those limitations caused by the disability.  Some new veterans of the current conflict are suffering injuries early in their military careers.  Many by the age of 19 or 20 years old received an injury that renders them unable to continue to perform in their service occupations.  This places the veteran out of the military, unfit for employment in the civilian work environment, and dealing with the emotional difficulty of their injury and perhaps suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  During this time the veteran’s eligibility is expiring as they try to reevaluate their life. In some situations it may take 10 to 15 years before the veteran is ready to even consider employment.

A problem that PVA service officers from various regions of the country have reported is that the VA counselors try to persuade the veteran not to get involved with vocational rehabilitation.  The delimitation occurs when the veteran is rated at fifty to sixty percent disabled, or greater.  If the veteran expresses a desire for rehabilitation to perhaps some day become employed, the counselor often persuades them that they are too disabled to work and that they should resubmit a claim to increase the percentage of disability.  With this advice coming from the experienced VA counselor most veterans in this situation are reluctant to pursue the VR&E program.  PVA believes that any disabled veteran that has an interest in future employment should be encouraged and supported to pursue this interest, not discouraged from this option. 

A crucial issue that is discussed in The Independent Budget is the lack a subsistence allowance for those attending the VR&E program.  Although preliminary numbers do not show a large detraction from VR&E  participants by the new GI Bill,  it is obvious that many will not select the VR&E, or later dropout of the program to enroll in the GI Bill because of the living allowance that is included in that program.  Congress should enact legislation to authorize a subsistence allowance that is equivalent to the allowance in the GI Bill.

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our written testimony.  We will be happy to work with this Subcommittee in the future as it continues to address the oversight of the VR &E program.