Monday, April 18, 2011

Hearings on Veterans’ Employment, Transition, and Guard & Reserve Civilian Programs

ROA and REA attended and submitted testimony for the recent Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SVAC) hearing “Veterans’ Employment: Improving the Transition from the Battlefield to the Workplace.”

Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) brought up the fact that in March, the Department of Labor (DoL) found that unemployment for veterans aged 20 to 24 was more than 27 percent.

Ranking Member Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said that in two Government Accountability Office reports during fiscal year 2009 over $18 billion was spent on 47 separate programs set up by nine agencies, and all but three overlapped with at least one other program.

The DoL’s Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training testified that the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) is in the process of being completely revamped and is due to launch on Veterans’ Day this year. He also said there is a rural veteran outreach pilot that was launched in Washington and currently there is a 90 percent participation rate.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) asked the Defense Department’s (DoD) representative whether certifications could be validated with an official document that service members could take with them to civilian employment. But the response was confusing when initially the witness said yes, but one of his staff said it could not be done.

The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel’s hearing regarding active, Guard, reserve, and civilian programs followed. Panels included Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who testified on removing the Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependent and Indemnity Compensation (SBP-DIC) offset, as well as the Senior Enlisted Advisors and military and veteran service organizations representing The Military Coalition. ROA and REA also submitted testimony for this hearing.

To ROA’s frustration, transition and employment for Guard and Reserve members was discussed little . There was more information provided in the written testimonies, but the oral testimony provides a greater opportunity to bring forward priorities and existing problems and concerns.

The Army witness mentioned the directive for a comprehensive review of the ACAP program; the Navy mentioned TAPs and that they have to keep an eye on the forefront; and the Air Force talked about the importance of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and transferability.

The Marines are looking into having a “one-stop shop” for transitioning service members with “Door 1” being for college and “Door 2” for a job, and per the Commandant’s request the entire transition program is to be assessed and overhauled. Yet during the employment hearing it was specifically mentioned by a former Navy Corpsman that one-stop shops are not effective - they are muddled with too much information.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) brought up the fact... that unemployment for veterans aged 20 to 24 was more than 27 percent."

Does this number include the veterans who are utilizing their GI Bill or otherwise going to school instead of directly entering the workforce? This conflating of numbers was recently addressed and debunked in a recent issue of GI Jobs.

"The DoL’s Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training testified that the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) is in the process of being completely revamped and is due to launch on Veterans’ Day this year. He also said there is a rural veteran outreach pilot that was launched in Washington and currently there is a 90 percent participation rate."

Particiaption rate is one of the biggest issues with TAP. IIRC, the Marines make it mandatory, but among other services, it's mandatory case-by-case/base-by-base. DoD is dragging their feet by not making it mandatory across the board or standardizing their criteria about who NEEDS to attend before ETS/retirement.

Along with participation, you run the risks of what the participants need. Not all transitioning service members are headed in the same direction. Even if they are going to school, they may still require some basic transferable skills training that a regular 4 yr school may not be able to assist with translating military specific terminology.

If it's mandatory, you also run the risk of the unwilling participant. C'mon... what soldier, faced with 'checking the block' of completing some 'mandated' course before they can hit the bricks, really WANTS to do something that's mandatory? Not only have they disregarded recommendations from the in-the-field level on the DOL side, but brass completely misses the troop-level POV. If you present a course as something you need to 'check the block' and complete, it will be *treated* as such by the participants.