[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EVOLUTION OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-874 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
GLENN C. NYE, Virginia
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
July 16, 2009
Page
The Evolution of State Approving Agencies........................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 26
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 26
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration.. 17
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 44
______
American Legion, Mark Walker, Deputy Director, National Economic
Commission..................................................... 5
Prepared statement of Mr. Walker............................. 28
American Veterans (AMVETS), Raymond C. Kelley, National
Legislative Director........................................... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Kelley............................. 30
Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.............................................. 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Bishop..................... 27
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Patrick Campbell, Chief
Legislative Counsel............................................ 8
Prepared statement of Mr. Campbell........................... 31
National Association of State Approving Agencies, Charles Rowe,
President...................................................... 16
Prepared statement of Mr. Rowe............................... 36
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Justin Brown,
Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service............ 9
Prepared statement of Mr. Brown.............................. 34
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, Washington, DC, Kathryn M.
Snead, Ed.D., President, statement............................. 46
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, U.S. House of Representatives,
letter dated July 20, 2009, and Congressman Bishop's
responses.................................................. 48
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Mark Walker, Deputy Director, National Economic Commission,
American Legion, letter dated July 20, 2009, and response
letter dated August 31, 2009............................... 49
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, AMVETS,
letter dated July 20, 2009, and Mr. Kelley's responses..... 50
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Patrick Campbell, Chief Legislative Counsel, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, letter dated July 20,
2009, and Mr. Campbell's responses......................... 52
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Justin Brown, Legislative Associate, National Legislative
Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
letter dated July 20, 2009, and Mr. Brown's responses,
dated September 1, 2009.................................... 53
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Charles Rowe, President, National Association of State
Approving Agencies, letter dated July 20, 2009, and
response from William D. Stephens, President, National
Association of State Approving Agencies, letter dated
August 28, 2009............................................ 55
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Keith M. Wilson, Director, Office of Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, letter dated July 20, 2009, and VA
responses.................................................. 60
THE EVOLUTION OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:25 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Adler, Teague,
and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, hearing on State Approving Agencies (SAA)
will come to order.
Before I begin with my opening statement, I would like to
state that Dr. Kathryn Snead, President of the Servicemembers
Opportunity Colleges has asked to submit a written statement
for the hearing record. I ask unanimous consent that Dr.
Snead's statement be entered for the record.
Hearing no objection, so entered.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snead appears on p. 46.]
I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that
written statements be made a part of the record.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
My colleagues may recall that we conducted a hearing in
April 2007 on the subject of State Approving Agencies. In that
hearing, we sought to determine how the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) was following up on a 2007 U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled,
``Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approving
Education and Training Programs and to Assess State Approving
Programs,'' to ensure Federal resources are not duplicated and
provide the VA with stronger oversight authority over SAAs.
Today's hearing provides the Subcommittee the opportunity
to follow up on the hearing and will provide the VA the
opportunity to highlight its progress from 2 years ago; provide
us the opportunity to learn what more can be done to ensure
SAAs are making the best use of its limited resources; and help
us determine if Congressional action is required to ensure our
veterans are enrolled in educational programs where they can
meet their educational goals.
As many of our panel members know, the authority of SAAs
was established by Congress in 1947 to ensure that veterans and
eligible dependents can use the GI Bill educational entitlement
in an approved educational program. Under contract with the VA,
the key function of SAAs is to ensure that education and
training programs meet VA standards through a range of approval
entities and activities. In addition to these responsibilities,
the SAAs' role has grown from what was first provided in title
38, chapter 36, which will be discussed in today's hearing.
In the last Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Bob
Filner, we successfully provided a permanent yearly funding
increase at $19 million. Today, we will hear from
representatives of the SAA who are seeking additional resources
to help them meet their obligations to our veterans and the VA.
I look forward to hearing from all the panelists to see
what additional resources may be warranted or, in the
alternative, if SAAs can be streamlined to use their limited
resources more effectively.
I now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member,
Congressman John Boozman, for any opening remarks he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 26.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The State Approving Agencies are VA's frontline partners in
ensuring veterans receive quality education and training.
Without the State Approving Agencies, additional VA staff would
be needed to provide many of the functions now done by the
SAAs.
Today's higher education system is vastly different from
that of the 1940s. For example, there is now more oversight by
States and national accrediting agencies on all schools. There
are now more schools, many of which have multiple campuses;
more training programs, which also have several campuses; and
more options, such as distance learning, to access these
programs.
Online education is experiencing rapid growth, and some
fully accredited institutions have a majority of their students
participating through online courses. And many schools now
offer blended attendance, featuring a mix of classroom and
online courses.
Education and training has also experienced significant
cost growth from the period of the first GI Bill. Using normal
inflation rates, the $500 paid to schools and the $50 per month
living stipend to cover all costs under the World War II GI
Bill would now be $10,418. However, according to the College
Board, the average tuition and fees at public institutions now
is about $18,500.
Last year, PL 110-389, Congress required VA to ensure that
VA and SAAs were coordinating their functions with other
agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), as a
means to ensure that we are not having any duplication. Title
38 also lists the statutory duties of the SAAs.
The question is whether, given all the changes in
education, we need to refocus the effort of the SAAs. It would
seem to me that the public university system, or what we refer
to as recognized leading national universities, such as those
listed by Newsweek and other publications, need little
additional oversight. Courses or degrees offered by those
schools should be accepted as meeting VA standards.
With the increased level of benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and proliferation of nondegree and on-the-job training
(OJT) apprenticeship programs, additional oversight of those
programs would seem appropriate. I would also note that title
38 allows States to add approval requirements.
I suspect if we had a checklist from each SAA, we would
find that, beyond the statutory requirements, significant
variation in what they look for.
Madam Chair, the SAAs will again begin pressing for
additional funding beyond the $19 million currently authorized,
and again, we look forward to hearing testimony in that regard
today.
We should decide what the SAAs should be, and VA should be
a part of that process. Once we have done that, then we should
pay them for that work.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 26.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I thank the Ranking Member and I agree
with his statements.
I now want to welcome our colleague, the distinguished
gentleman from New York, for testifying before the Subcommittee
today.
Representative Timothy Bishop joins us to offer a very
unique perspective from his life before Congress that will
guide on us the work that we undertake today and as we evaluate
what responsibilities the State Approving Agencies have had in
the past, what they currently have, based on his experience in
higher education.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop, for joining us. You are
now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Bishop. Madam Chair, thank you very much for the
opportunity to be with you and with Ranking Member Boozman and
Mr. Teague.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
express my strong support for the State Approving Agencies and
the crucial role they play in supporting our veterans.
As the Chairwoman suggested, before I came to the Congress,
I was a college administrator for 29 years at Southampton
College, including for the last 16 years, I was chief executive
of that campus. And thus I have a great deal of firsthand
experience in working with the SAAs.
Representatives from the New York SAA would visit the
campus annually to assess the quality of Southampton's programs
and ensure that our veteran students were taking full advantage
of the academic and extracurricular activities we offered.
Southampton College was a fully accredited institution of
higher education, but it was very helpful for us to have an
external quality assessment each year, and that is precisely
what the SAAs provided.
Throughout my career in academia, the SAAs made
administering the GI Bill benefits easier for Southampton as an
institution and helped us to better serve our dedicated veteran
students.
Today as a Member of Congress, I have a new appreciation
for their diligence in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are
supporting only bona fide academic programs and that veterans
are receiving the top quality education they have earned.
I was proud to vote for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and see it
signed into law as the most significant veterans benefit in
American history. The unprecedented scope of this program has
required a dramatic increase in activity at all agencies
responsible for administering the GI Bills, including the SAAs.
However, the Federal commitment to the SAAs has not been
enhanced to meet the increasing demands of this new mission
which include: performing outreach activities to increase the
utilization of the GI Bills; providing advice and guidance to
veterans, Guard, Reservists and other GI Bill recipients as
well as educators, trainers and others who counsel veterans;
training VA school certifying officials at all educational
institutions and job training establishments; and, assisting
the Federal Government in eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
Other witnesses on the panel today will be able to detail
more specifically how the recent freeze in funding has affected
the SAAs. However, I believe it is clear that they have been
asked to do too much for too many with too little. Furthermore
the need for enhanced funding is particularly critical as the
21st century GI Bill begins paying benefits this fall. Having
created this landmark program, Congress must make adequate
provision to ensure it benefits our veterans as it was
intended.
I am gratified that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
shares my strong support for the SAAs and views them as a
valued partner that deserves additional support.
Once again, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before the Subcommittee today. Like our Nation's
veterans, the SAAs deserve the highest level of support from
Congress, and I hope to have the opportunity to vote for an
appropriate increase in funding for the SAAs this session.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Bishop appears on
p. 27.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. I just want to thank you for coming.
I don't have any questions, but I do look forward to
visiting with you as we hear testimony. You really do have a
very unique perspective, and we want to take advantage of that.
Mr. Bishop. I would welcome that opportunity. And I look
forward to that. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you for taking the time to come.
Mr. Bishop. My pleasure.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Teague.
Mr. Teague. No, just thank you for being here, Congressman,
and I appreciate your interest and your expertise. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We thank you for taking time out of
your schedule. We know that you have a markup to get to. We
look forward to working with you on this matter and continuing
to share information that will assist us in doing right by the
State Approving Agencies.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you and thank you for your leadership on
veterans issues.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much.
We now invite panel two to the witness table.
Joining us on our second panel is Mr. Mark Walker, Deputy
Director of the National Economic Commission for the American
Legion; Mr. Raymond Kelley, National Legislative Director for
AMVETS; Mr. Patrick Campbell, Chief Legislative Counsel for the
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); and Mr. Justin
Brown, Legislative Associate of the National Legislative
Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United
States.
Welcome to all of you.
Mr. Walker, we will begin with you.
You are now recognized for 5 minutes. As all of you know,
your written statements will be made a part of the hearing
record. Keep your remarks to 5 minutes so that we have plenty
of time for Members' questions.
Thank you. Mr. Walker.
STATEMENTS OF MARK WALKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; RAYMOND C. KELLEY, NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); PATRICK
CAMPBELL, CHIEF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND JUSTIN BROWN, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE
UNITED STATES
STATEMENT OF MARK WALKER
Mr. Walker. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Boozman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to submit the views of the American Legion
regarding the evolution of State Approving Agencies.
State Approving Agencies are responsible for approving and
supervising programs of education for the training of veterans,
eligible dependents, and eligible members of the National Guard
and Reserves.
State Approving Agencies grew out of the original GI Bill
of Rights that became law in 1944. Though State Approving
Agencies have their foundation in Federal law, State Approving
Agencies operate as part of State government. Effective March
1, 2001, State Approving Agencies assumed responsibility for
approving organizations offering tests required to secure,
local, State, Federal, or industry based licenses or
certifications.
State Approving Agencies have not had an increase in
funding in the last 4 years. However, VA was allowed to conduct
substantial hiring to process new claims. By contrast, State
Approving Agencies haven't been in a position to hire even
though the Post-9/11 GI Bill workload has ballooned for these
agencies as well. In order to carry out its expanded missions
in light of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, State Approving Agencies
require an additional $5 million per year for the next 3 years.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill has dramatically changed the work
requirement for State Approving Agencies. Adequate funding will
provide additional staff and other resources for State
Approving Agencies to fulfill its mission. The benefit stream
flows through State Approving Agencies as well as the VA and
without a fully functioning State Approving Agency, veterans
and other benefit recipients will not receive their education
benefits in a smooth, orderly and timely manner.
In a GAO report in March 2007, entitled ``VA Student
Financial Aid: Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in
Approving Education and Training Programs and to Assess State
Approving Agencies,'' focused on the need to ensure that
Federal dollars are spent effectively and efficiently.
GAO recommended that VA should require State Approving
Agencies to track and report data on resources spent on
approval activities, such as site visits, catalog review and
outreach, in a cost-efficient manner. Additionally, GAO
recommended assessing the effectiveness of the State Approving
Agencies' efforts. Finally, GAO recommended that VA should
collaborate with other agencies to identify any duplicative
efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process. The American
Legion fully agrees with these GAO recommendations.
The American Legion strongly supports State Approving
agencies and is committed to working with them along with the
VA and other Federal agencies to ensure that America's veterans
receive the finest education and training programs so they can
live a dignified and successful life after serving this great
Nation. Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit the
opinion of the American Legion on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears on p. 28.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Kelley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY
Mr. Kelley. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
AMVETS's views on State Approving Agencies. In March 2007, the
GAO reported on State Approving Agencies and made three major
recommendations.
First, VA should require SAA to track and report data on
resources spent on approval activities; second, VA should
collaborate with other agencies to identify any duplicative
efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process; and finally, VA
should establish outcome-oriented performance measures to
assess the effectiveness of SAAs.
VA concurred with the findings and promised to find
solutions to these issues in fiscal year 2008. However, AMVETS
has been unable to find any indication that VA has made efforts
to correct these deficiencies in the 2008 budget cycle or any
subsequent year. As early as 1988, GAO reported on this issue
of agency overlap of program approval. AMVETS believes there is
added value to SAAs approval training and oversight role, but
without accountability of time and resources and tangible
outcome measures, the effectiveness and efficiency of SAAs will
never be known.
First, AMVETS questions the amount of time that is invested
on program approval and review. The most recent review of SAAs'
time allocation the AMVETS could find is from 1988. This data
found that nearly 36 percent of SAA's time was spent approving
and reviewing programs. This is disturbing to AMVETS in light
of the fact that the majority of the programs have already been
approved by other government agencies.
AMVETS understands the unique role of SAA has in ensuring
veterans programs are approved, but with that said, nearly 80
percent of the all programs approved by the Department of
Education are also approved by SAA. And by law, all
apprenticeships must meet Labor Department standards before
they can be accepted by VA. So even though there are unique
factors that SAA looks at to determine eligible programs, there
is an inherent redundancy in the approval process between SAA
and other approving agencies.
Nearly 2\1/2\ years have passed since VA stated they would
initiate contact with the appropriate officials in the
Departments of Education and Labor to identify any duplicative
efforts, with no indication of changing their policy to reduce
the duplication.
Second, VA has also boasted that they diligently track
SAA's activities. The issue AMVETS has with this tracking
process is that SAA only tracks activities or outputs and not
the given results or improvements--outcomes of these
activities. Reporting how many site visits SAA has made, or the
amount of training that was provided, only accounts for hours
worked and not the actual results the visits and training had
in improving the services to veterans. To truly understand the
efficiency and effectiveness of a program, SAA must track the
outcome measures of the work they conduct.
It is also important to track the efficiency and
effectiveness of a program when there are no internal controls
over the financial assets. VA provides SAA with $19 million a
year with no expectation that SAA report back on the use of
these funds. The only mechanism that is in place to monitor the
productivity of SAA is the self-evaluation and review, called
the Joint Peer Review Group. This group meets annually to
review each of SAA's self-assessed performances. AMVETS
questions the sincerity of these reviews, not based on the fact
that it is self-assessment reviewed by its peers, but by the
fact that these reviews not accessible to the public.
SAA lacks two key components in determining efficiency and
effectiveness of a program: accountability of resources and
data that shows services improved because of the program.
In conclusion, AMVETS believes that SAA does provide value
to veterans, but until there is oversight and accountability
mechanisms in place, the degree of the value cannot be
determined. It is for this reason that AMVETS recommends,
first, that SAA begin reporting back to the VA their use of
funds; second, that there be a real effort to identify program
approval overlaps that take place and implement a plan on how
SAA will eliminate the overlaps; and SAA will develop outcome
measures for their site visits and training programs to report
them to VA and the public and an annual joint peer review group
report be presented to VA and the public.
That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take
any questions you have at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears on p. 30.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Campbell, welcome back to the Subcommittee. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK CAMPBELL
Mr. Campbell. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, Congressman
Teague, thank you for the opportunity to come back and testify
in front of you. I will be honest, when I got the invitation
about coming to testify about State Approving Agencies, I
didn't know very much. And this was I think a very good
research project for all four of us here, trying to find out,
what exactly do State Approving Agencies do.
The topic of this hearing is the evolution of the State
Approving Agencies. That implies looking at where we were,
where we are, and deciding where we want to go. And I went back
and ironically read the World War II GI Bill, which I did not
know was only 4 pages long. And section four of the World War
II GI Bill basically said, the State Approving Agencies were
created just to create a list of approved programs. This was an
advisory purpose. They would send that list up to the VA
Administrator and say, here are some programs that veterans
should be able to use the GI Bill at.
Over the last 60 years, we have evolved a great deal from
that, from not only just being an advisory role to actually
approving over 27,000 approved VA programs, about 6,000
colleges or degree-granting institution. Having done some
research on the VA Web site, there are 27,000 approved programs
that State Approving Agencies have to monitor every year. That
is not a number I found. That is a number I had to steal from
the VA Web site. Overall that was pretty number is impressive
to me.
Last year 8,700 schools had GI Bill users attend their
schools. So we are talking about the breadth of what State
Approving Agencies have to do. I am impressed. Now, because
there are no performance measures, who knows how well they are
actually evaluating those schools.
So it started off solely as an advisory role. After World
War II, there was a report done by a Congressman Teague in the
1950s, that said World War II and Korean GI Bill had a major
flaw because it paid tuition and fees directly to the school
with very little oversight. That became a problem for the
proprietary schools because there was not clear criteria for
approving these programs. And they also found that there was
some fraud, waste, and abuse.
They cracked down on those programs by laying out the very
rules that you see on page 2 of my testimony, saying these are
the rules that any program that a GI Bill user will use must
follow in order to be approved by the GI Bill program. So you
have an advisory role. Then they had an approval role. Later
they got added national test approval.
What is the future of the State Approving Agencies? IAVA
advocated very strongly on behalf of getting the new GI Bill to
start paying tuition and fees back directly to the schools.
That means the role of these State Approving Agencies could not
be any more important in enforcing those approvals because they
are the frontline defense against fraud, waste, and abuse for a
program that costs billions of dollars every year.
The Congressional Budget Office scored the Post-9/11 GI
Bill at something like $62 billion over the next 10 years, and
we are spending about $19 million a year making sure that that
money is being directed to programs that are actually producing
educational goals.
This becomes an even bigger issue when you look at the VA's
interpretation of tuition and fees. The VA has pretty much
created a vacuum for schools to operate however they want. This
is not a knock on the VA, but right now, the tuition and fees
part of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is based on self-reporting. You
get tuition based on whatever you claim is tuition. You get
fees based on what you claim is fees. You get tuition and fees
based on how many credits you deem are credits or how many
terms you deem you have. There is a lot of wiggle room there,
meaning that if you decided you didn't want to charge tuition
anymore but you wanted to start charging fees in a State like
Colorado, you could get $47,000 in one term but only be
enrolled in one credit just by changing the name of what you
call the education benefit.
Now $19 million is not a lot of money when you start
comparing how much money they could be saving as soon as the VA
decides what these criteria should be for. What is a credit?
What is a term? What are fees? What is tuition?
What is the evolution of the State Approving Agency?
Advisory to approval, and next, they are going to have to be
the enforcement agency. They are going to have to go after
these schools that are operating in this vacuum right now and
lay down very clear standards for how the Post-9/11 GI Bill
should be implemented.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell appears on p. 31.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee, on
behalf of the 2.2 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and our auxiliaries, I would like to thank this Committee
for this opportunity to testify.
The issues under consideration today are of great
importance to our members and the entire veteran population.
State Approving Agencies were created following the passage
of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944 to help administer
the benefit well; assisting the Federal Government in
preventing waste, fraud, and abuse; maintaining a high-quality
learning experience for veterans utilizing Federal benefits;
and assisting veterans transitioning from the military into the
civilian sector.
The mission of the State Approving Agencies has changed
relatively little until recently. However, multiple recent
legislative changes have increased and broadened their scope
and mission. The most notable include the passage of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, and in 2001, State Approving Agencies were given
the role of actively promoting the development of
apprenticeships, on-job training programs, and the approval of
tests used for licensing and certification.
The legislative action in 2001 was followed with a funding
increase in fiscal year 2003 from $13 million with a graduated
increase to $19 million by fiscal year 2006, their current
level of funding. In consideration of inflation, State
Approving Agencies' funding levels have continually eroded
since their last increase in fiscal year 2006. While Veterans
Affairs have been amply funded and allowed time to prepare for
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, State Approving Agencies are operating
at the same level of funding for their fourth year.
Without a similar increase in resources, certain
responsibilities will be neglected, thereby decreasing the
program's overall quality for veterans and reducing the
insurance of a quality investment for our Federal Government.
For the GI Bill to remain the first rate program it is today,
State Approving Agencies must have the necessary funding to
maintain their critical mission.
The VFW believes that it is especially important to
emphasize the increased potential for waste, fraud, and abuse
of this benefit. The changes in the rate-of-pursuit schedule
and the yellow ribbon program leave the possibility of large
overpayments or underpayments to veterans attending school.
Moreover, the National Association of State Approving
Agencies has singled this issue out as perhaps its most
manpower-intensive mission considering the changes due to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
If left unattended, overpayments not corrected for a long
period of time could prove devastating to veterans at no fault
of their own. Overpayments are typically drawn from future
payments to veterans and may leave them with less than adequate
funding to maintain their livelihood. Veterans depend on the
benefits process to get it right the first time and State
Approving Agencies play a crucial role in the process.
The VFW hopes to see a vigilant staff at both the State and
Federal levels with adequate resources working to ensure a
smooth, seamless administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, with
little or no effect on the quality of other programs and
missions.
There is no question that the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a
complex benefit. Moreover, within the next few years, it is
likely that there will be legislative changes to the Post-9/11
GI Bill that will require additional outreach and training.
State Approving Agencies are behind the curve in funding, have
an expanded mission, and are losing time to train and implement
resources that come with an increase in funding.
In conclusion, the VFW strongly supports the National
Association of State Approving Agencies' request for an
additional $5 million per year for a total of $24 million per a
fiscal year. The VFW believes this would prove sufficient for
the State Approving Agencies' newly expanded workload. The VFW
also requests any increase be tied to a cost-of-living index to
reduce the gradual deterioration of the benefit.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy
to answer any questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears on p. 34.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
My first question will go to each of the witnesses on this
panel. Since the Department of Education and the Department of
Labor already approve a big portion of the programs, then to
avoid work duplication, should the State Approving Agencies be
limited to approving programs not approved by the Federal
agencies?
Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. We would view that the SAAs should still be
involved with this process. I think school officials as well as
veterans kind of understand their role, and I think it would
still be beneficial for SAA along with their expertise to be
able to handle that as well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Can you elaborate? Is there something
that the SAAs can do in approving a program that the Department
of Education or the Department of Veterans Affairs or the
Department of Labor couldn't do?
Mr. Walker. Well, we don't think that--I guess you would
say there is some overlapping. But we have just seen that,
based upon what we are hearing, is that basically SAA has done
a good job with that. And I guess we need further time to
research more of that to give you a more concrete answer.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Kelley. SAA needs to continue their oversight role and
their approval role. But they do need to take time and maybe
build a metrics of things that are overlaps so they do not have
to duplicate those services.
So on a site visit, part of--the Department of Education
and SAA look at the facility, make sure it an adequate
facility, that the right equipment is in the facility. If both
of them are doing that, that is time and man-hours spent that
don't need to be spent. There needs to be a metrics put
together that says, if the Department of Education has already
approved this, that means we can forgo these steps and go
directly to this step. They still need to be involved in each
and every approval, but they can take steps to reduce the
amount work they do on the ones that have already been
approved.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I may come back to you, but I
appreciate that.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. State Approving Agencies review every
program, do a site visit 1 to every 3 years. I think that site
visit not only has a purpose of reviewing the school but also
developing a relationship with the people there. By developing
that relationship, they then become the expert on the GI Bill.
And then when that school goes to implement--this new GI Bill
is not easy at all----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me interject. Are you aware of
whether or not the Department of Education--is not taking those
same steps.
Mr. Campbell. According to the GAO, accrediting agencies
visit school sites every 2 to 10 years, and the Department of
Education only visits schools that have been listed as having
performance issues. So the comparison is the SAA will be there
1 to every 3 years.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If there are performance issues?
Mr. Campbell. No, the SAA will be there 1 to every 3 years
regardless. The Education Department will only be there if
there is a performance issue.
The accreditation may not be there for 10 years. And I have
actually served on an accreditation team before. They are a lot
more thorough than I would imagine the SAAs are, but they
happen on a--you get a 6- to 10-year approval, then you don't
do anything. You don't start thinking about them until you are
almost at year 8.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me throw out a hypothetical
question, because I have been through the accreditation
process, too.
Do we need State Approving Agencies then to visit every 1
to 3 years for programs to be approved at Harvard, Yale,
Georgetown, or Stanford?
Mr. Campbell. I think it makes sense--you would think that
Harvard and Stanford and Yale, they are not going to want to
lose their accreditation. They are going to want to be doing it
right. But as soon as that State Approving Agency walks onto
that campus, the first person they are going to want to meet is
that VA certifier.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So you maybe agree with Mr. Kelley
then, if we can develop the measurements in a way where the
State Approving Agencies are maintaining a relationship; they
do not have to be duplicative, though in terms of spending
their resources to approve programs where the Department of
Education has gone and approved them. Are you saying that there
should be no change or modification to the approval?
Mr. Campbell. There actually already is. This is actually
in my testimony. I can't say that I am responsible for this.
Connecticut State Approving Agency created a chart that says
there are very different criteria that they use for accredited
and non-accredited schools already. I would be willing to
tinker with that and make sure that that is as streamlined and
efficient as possible.
This is the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This is
actually in the CFR right now. There is a distinction between
accredited and non-accredited schools.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are the State Approving Agencies
following it?
Mr. Campbell. That is a remarkably good question.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That goes to Mr. Kelley's point.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Kelley's point of the self-review. The
paper has not been published, and we have not seen it.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. I would echo a lot of the same responses, the
most obvious being that the SAAs are more frequently visiting
the schools. But I am also hesitant to comment before I hear
the later panels and hearing what they have done since the 2007
GAO report.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But you are not aware whether or not
all of those recommendations have been implemented?
Mr. Brown. Right.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley, I think, brought up a good point with the
metrics. I guess what I would like for you all to comment on a
little bit along that regard, we are talking about whether or
not we need to increase funding, but I guess it does make sense
to put some things in place before you do that. Does that--can
you all comment on that, in the sense of putting some metrics?
The other thing is, there is finite resources available,
and these resources take away from other things that we are
trying to get done. And at some point, do the resources go to
preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, as opposed to just kind of
doing things because we have always done them for the last
however many years?
Mr. Kelley. I will start, I guess.
Ray Kelley from AMVETS.
I can't say how much the SAA needs to fund. It may be $19
million, it may be $40 million to run their operation
correctly, to provide the services that they need to provide.
And I think they are critical services. But until they start
reporting back how they are spending their money and until they
show that they are not going to do duplicative services, until
they can prove that the reports that they do are accurate and
that they are open to the public, then I am hesitant to
increase any funding at this point.
Mr. Campbell. And I just think that any new role for the
State Approving Agency must have some type of review for the
tuition and fees part of the new GI Bill. That is something
that has a huge open hole, and so, in addressing that, that is
the people who would be the best position to monitor it and
make sure that there is not fraud, waste and abuse, giving them
the tools and the guidelines they need and tasking them with
making sure that those are happening.
Mr. Boozman. But the actual monitoring be transparent.
Mr. Campbell. I definitely think that that report needs to
be--you can't have an agency who is accountable without
transparency. We say that about the VA in all steps.
Mr. Brown. I would agree with that. We haven't seen the
Joint Peer Review Group report either. And that seems to be the
report, if you will, that has all the performance measures.
But I would argue that I also have not seen anything that
would suggest that they are also overfunded. And in
consideration of the new Post-9/11 GI Bill, their mission is
going to dramatically expand. I can just picture how much time
they are going to be spending on the phone and in the offices
educating people. All the meanwhile, while they are having
these conversations, we are probably going to see a decline, in
my opinion, probably on the quality assurance side. They are
not all Harvards and Yales. And you are going to have, because
of the increased amount of money with the GI Bill, you are
going to have a lot more people trying to apply to get on these
registers as well.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you, guys. As always, that is very
helpful.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. A couple more questions.
First, recognizing, Mr. Brown. You just said that you are
not aware that the SAAs are overfunded. One of the things we
are trying to get at here is how resources are allocated and
how they could be better allocated within the work that the
SAAs do.
I am informed by counsel that some State Approving Agencies
in each of the last 3 years have returned money. I am not
stating that they are overfunded. It is just, without metrics,
how do we know how to better allocate those resources if they
are returning money because they are restricted on how they can
use that money to do other things?
Mr. Brown. If I could ask a question----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, hold it for 1 second. I will
come back to you before I wrap up; I want you to pose that
question to you.
But this issue of the SAAs and the work that will be
required of them as the new GI Bill is fully implemented, the
VA has been authorized to hire temporary employees. What are
your thoughts on the State Approving Agencies, to be able to
get over this initial hurdle of implementing a complex new
benefit, that is not going to get any less complex but
hopefully will get easier as everyone is used to it. Any
thoughts on the SAAs being authorized to hire staff on a
temporary basis rather than permanently expanding a budget or
activities without those metrics?
Mr. Brown. Madam Chairwoman, I don't think the VFW would be
averse to that so long as, once that temporary funding was
gone, their mission also narrowed. The education had all been
out there, there was enough outreach, everyone understood the
new GI Bill, and they were back to their original mission, I
don't think we would have a problem with that.
Mr. Campbell. I could see partial temporary increase and
then some permanent increase. The reason why, I don't think the
tuition and fee oversight role is going to go away any time
soon. But I do see the outreach part of it being a huge 1- to
2-year increase.
I can be honest, I am trying really hard to get the word
out about the new GI Bill as much as I can. I know Keith Wilson
is doing his best. There are just too many people asking
questions. If we wanted to make their outreach portion, their
education portion temporary, but having their tuition and fees
reviewed, that needs to be on a more permanent basis.
Mr. Kelley. This may be the first time ever that I
completely agree with Patrick Campbell.
Mr. Campbell. His daughter is here, so mark that down.
Mr. Kelley. The continuation of reviewing, each year the
university can say they are going to change their tuition and
fees, and there needs to be oversight on that. And the only way
to do that is with permanent people. You cannot say, okay, we
are over the hump of getting all of these programs up and
running. Each year after that or each semester after that, the
university can change that.
So that, long term, is probably where to go. But again,
AMVETS would like to see how money is being spent before we
allocate more.
Mr. Walker. And we would, the Legion would consider this
temporary thing, but we also would go more long term to make
sure that the veterans are receiving the training and education
programs that they need. We would be more toward long term, but
we would consider the temporary aspect.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Brown, you had a question?
Mr. Brown. You had said that some States had returned
money, but I believe, from what I heard, but again, I haven't
seen the reports, that some States also required additional
funding.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That is what we are going to try to
get at with Mr. Rowe's testimony. But that raises the question
that, without the data, without the information that Mr. Kelley
rightfully articulated in his testimony, is necessary to help
guide the decisions as to whether or not we work to help secure
additional funding. How they are using their resources when 36
percent of their time is to approving and reviewing programs
when a majority of that is already approved by other agencies.
How can we address what we think may be duplicative but at the
same time either eliminate restrictions that result in some
SAAs returning money or more focus the work so that those that
are requesting more money actually have the resources, because
they are not putting it into duplicative work.
Mr. Boozman, anything final for this panel?
Okay. I thank all of you gentlemen and your ongoing
commitment to a variety of issues, some familiar, some slightly
new, that we are looking at in this new environment of
implementing the new GI Bill.
I would now like to invite the next panel to the witness
table.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Joining us on our third panel is Mr.
Charles Rowe, President of the National Association of State
Approving Agencies (NASAA), who is accompanied by Mr. Dan
Wellman and Mr. Skip Gebhart, both Deputy Legislative Directors
of the National Association of State Approving Agencies; and
Mr. Keith Wilson, the Director of the Office of Education
Service, Veterans Benefit Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. We look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Rowe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES ROWE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE APPROVING AGENCIES; ACCOMPANIED BY DAN WELLMAN, DEPUTY
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING
AGENCIES; SKIP GEBHART, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES; AND KEITH M. WILSON,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ROWE
Mr. Rowe. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, Members
of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today on
behalf of the National Association of State Approving Agencies
to provide a historical perspective and overview of the current
role SAAs are playing in approving and implementing the Post-9/
11 GI Bill.
I have an executive summary to read, but some of the issues
that were brought up and, if I might, I could address some of
those issues from the previous panel.
One of the things that I would like to correct is that the
Department of Education does not in fact approve any programs
of education. I don't know where that comes from. The
Department of Labor does register programs in States. And in my
State, since we have overview of all of those issues, if a
registered apprenticeship wants to enroll a veteran in a
program, my experience over the past 7 or 8 years is that they
will call me first because they have no idea what to do. I have
had, occasionally, some individuals who will take it upon
themselves to send in the required paperwork so the VA can
process an apprentice, and most of the time I find that it was
done incorrectly and doesn't meet the VA standards, and the
result is that the veteran doesn't get his benefits on time,
and I have to go redo the work anyway. So that is one thing I
wanted to say about what that does.
I would like to say also about the accreditation process, I
am not opposed to it. It is in addition to what it is that I
think our role is. But I would like to point out that it is a
peer review.
As you know, Madam Chairwoman, you said you have been part
of teams. You know, it is academic types reviewing other
academic types, most of the time in the same region. And so I
wonder sometimes what happens there. And they don't really look
at approved programs that I know of; the accreditation reports
that I have read don't really have that.
The other thing I would like to tell you about is a short
story that was told to me once. In New Jersey, Princeton
University has been there hundreds of years, an Ivy League
school. On one of my supervisory visits, I sat with Dr. Joseph
Greenberg, who has since passed away, and he told me a story
one time that he was at a cabinet level meeting of the
President. At the time, it was Dr. Shapiro, and they were
sitting around the table talking about how great Princeton is.
And Dr. Shapiro asked all his cabinet Members, does anybody
review what we do besides us? I know, we are Princeton, and we
are Ivy League, and we are the best in the country and all of
that. And Dr. Greenberg told me, and I raised my hand, yes, Dr.
Shapiro, every year the State Approving Agency comes here and
reviews all of our undergraduate and graduate programs and kind
of gives them a blessing. And he said, thanks, I think that is
important that somebody else reviews what we do every year and
what we offer our students.
I wanted to offer you that story, it is a true story,
because I think it is important to recognize that, even though
that institution has wonderful stature, they still value the
role that we play on campus.
Having said that, I would like to address one of the other
things about returned money. I am one of those States that
returned money for the last 2 years. The reason that is so is
because, when Governor Corzine came into office, the first
thing they did was freeze everything, like happens in a lot of
States, so I haven't been able to hire anyone for the past 2
and a half years. Therefore, I am operating--I should have,
according to the framework the VA has, I should have four
professional staff members and two support people. I have been
functioning with three, including myself as the director, and
one support person for the past 2\1/2\, and I think it is going
to continue that way.
So that is why we have in fact given back money, and I am
sure that is happening in other States, too. Right now, I am
probably going to be giving back more money this year because
our union has agreed to a furlough time. We have to work 10
days in this coming--no, we cannot work 10 days in the coming
year, no pay, so that means I can't bill the VA for time that I
don't draw a salary. I will be in fact turning back more money
this year, and most of those things, I have no control of any
of those situations.
I just wanted to correct--I didn't want to correct; I
wanted to make a statement in response so I wrote some of those
things down. I firmly believe, in the remaining time I have, I
believe that the ongoing training, education and outreach
efforts that are going to be required for the Post-9/11 GI Bill
have been stated by panel, and I agree with most of the things
they said.
I, too, am very concerned about the overpayments that are
going to be generated by not knowing, really, what to do about
how to process things and who is going to do those things. I
have said in my State that there are people asking questions,
and I am more concerned about the people who are not asking
questions, because I don't know what they are doing.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowe appears on p. 36.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Rowe.
Mr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin,
Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss VA
education benefit programs and the role of the State Approving
Agencies.
My testimony will highlight the role of the SAAs in serving
the needs of VA and our Nation's veterans. I will specifically
address program services, staffing oversight, SAA outreach
activities, and funding provided by the Post-9/11 Veterans
Education Assistance Act 2008.
VA and the SAAs work together to ensure successful
readjustment of veterans to civilian life through educational
opportunities. VA administers educational assistance to
eligible veterans and dependents while the SAAs ensure the
quality of the education and vocational programs pursued and
monitor the institutions providing education and training to
veterans.
They also conduct outreach programs and provide outreach
services to eligible persons and veterans about education and
training benefits that are available. Under contract to VA,
SAAs ensure that education and training programs meet Federal
VA standards through a variety of approval activities, such as
evaluating course quality, assessing school financial
stability, and monitoring student progress. VA currently has
contracts with 57 State Approving Agencies.
The current SAA staffing levels are adequate based on the
number of active facilities in each State. VA's focus, however,
is on outcomes. Therefore, VA primarily concentrates on whether
or not contractual obligations are met and less on the specific
staffing levels utilized to meet those requirements.
The fiscal year 2009 SAA contracts were revised to require
the SAAs to provide outreach visit reports to VA. In addition,
VA requested SAAs to complete an outreach questionnaire in
April 2009 on specific efforts related to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. The questionnaire responses and the outreach visit
reports indicate that the SAAs overall are performing
aggressive outreach for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
VA has enjoyed a longstanding positive relationship with
the SAAs. As with any relationship, however, we are continually
engaged to identify areas for improvement. The SAAs' mission is
clearly defined in statute. The SAAs have contributed to the
administration of education programs relatively free of waste,
fraud and abuse. Both VA and the SAAs are proud of that
success. As VA education programs in the education community
change, we look forward to meeting future challenges.
The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 provides the
Secretary shall take appropriate action to ensure the
coordination of approval activities performed by SAAs and
approval activities performed by the Department of Labor,
Department of Education and other entities in order to reduce
overlap and improve efficiency. In its July 2009 report to
Congress, ``Coordination of Approval Activities in the
Administration of Education Benefits,'' VA recommended
legislation that would give the Secretary authority to act on
any findings of duplicative efforts.
For example, section 3672 provides that a veteran or
eligible person may receive educational assistance under the
program as approved by SAAs. Approving a program is separate
and distinct from an accreditation process otherwise in place
or required for an institution.
By statute, the SAA must review programs of accredited
institutions and determine if they meet the approval criteria
in Section 3675.
We believe, for example, expanding the Secretary's
authority to accept registered apprenticeship programs or
flight approvals from the Department of Labor or the Federal
Aviation Administration would enable more effective use of SAA
resources.
The VA also suggests in the report that chapter 36 be
amended to give the VA discretion to accept certain programs,
such as programs offered by accredited public institutions,
without specific SAA approval unless VA determines it is
necessary to seek such approval.
Such amendments, if enacted, could streamline the statutory
responsibilities of the SAAs and allow for more effective
utilization of existing resources.
The VA further recommends that chapter 36 be amended to
authorize the Secretary to utilize the SAAs for compliance,
oversight, and more aggressive outreach activities as the
Secretary deems appropriate. We believe the proposed amendments
would be cost neutral, since the funding currently used to
approve programs would continue to be utilized to enhance
outreach, compliance, and oversight activities.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or any Member of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 44.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you both.
Mr. Wilson, toward the end of your testimony you addressed
one of the questions that I was going to direct to both of you.
But I would like to go back to the GAO report and the
recommendations that were made in March of 2007.
Mr. Rowe, have the State Approving Agencies or the VA, in
your experience, acted on those recommendations?
Mr. Rowe. Did you have a specific one that you are getting
at?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Any? Did you act on any?
Mr. Rowe. Last contract year the VA asked us to keep track
of certain activities, and we reported those on a monthly
basis. I cannot say what they did with the data, but through
our national association, Madam Chairwoman, to my left is Mr.
Gebhart, is from West Virginia, and I will let him speak to
that question if you would rather, but we have been under way
for the last 6 to 8 months on what we consider to be a true
outcomes-oriented measures of what we are doing.
We are a little preliminary on that, but I would let Mr.
Gebhart address that if you liked to at this point.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would like you to address it, but
before, let me just seek some clarification. Is this outcome
measures something that you have initiated or Mr. Wilson at the
VA initiated.
Mr. Rowe. It is a NASAA initiative. We started it in our
association. I thought it was important. I have been President
for 2 years, and I thought it was important back in 2007 when I
became president, that we not ignore those things, but I knew
they would come up again. So I have been searching for the
right person, and Skip is the right person, as far I know, from
anybody who tells me more. We have had a couple Subcommittee
meetings on it, and Skip is now in charge of that Subcommittee.
And like I said, it takes time to develop these measures.
It is not just simply counting things. It is what is--you
really want a true outcome, what is the outcome of what we do.
It is a difficult question to ask, but we are under way in
doing that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Gebhart, would you like to speak
more to your work?
Mr. Gebhart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We, as Mr. Rowe said, looked at the GAO report and said, we
need to be doing this ourselves. We need to do it for our
purposes. We need to do it for VA's, and we need to do it for
yours.
Outcome measurement is an extremely useful but extremely
complicated thing to do in a nonprofit organization such as the
SAAs and such as government, but we have identified, I think,
about 16 potential outcomes from the work of the SAAs.
For example, we currently say, ``how many approvals do we
do in a year?'' That is a count of how many times we say a
program is approved. And that can be thousands in some of the
larger States, but it is a meaningless number in essence. It
says we have looked a 1,000 programs, but it doesn't say what
happens because of that.
An outcome for that sort of thing would be, for example,
``veterans have access to quality programs.'' That is the
outcome that we are trying to achieve by looking at the
programs and saying, ``do they meet the criteria of the law?''
``Do they meet educational criteria?'' So we are saying, we may
look at a thousand but the outcome is ``better programs for
veterans to use.''
We do a lot of training and consulting with certifying
officials at the schools. We count that. Every time we do a
workshop, we report that we have done a workshop, but that is a
meaningless number in essence, because the question is, ``so
what?'' You did the workshop; what happens as a result? An
outcome of that would be that schools' reporting accuracy
improves. Certifying officials know more about what to do and
how to do it, so their reporting improves. That is the outcome
that we are looking for with our training.
Supervisory visits are another work element that we count.
The number of visits is meaningless, but what happens because
of them is the outcome we are looking for. That would be things
like ``problems and discrepancies are discovered more
quickly.'' We are out there once a year. VA is out about every
3 years. So we are finding the errors sooner than VA in many
cases, and we work with our VA counterparts to make sure that
they know what we find and vice versa, so that we are both
working together to reduce the number of discrepancies and
overpayments and, therefore, fraud waste and abuse.
The challenge is measuring all of these things. That is
what we are working on now.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that you have undertaken
that effort.
Mr. Wilson, has the VA acted on the third recommendation in
the GAO report? Are you working in any way in consultation with
what the SAAs have undertaken on their own initiative?
Mr. Wilson. They have their own initiatives under way, and
I applaud them.
We have also been engaged with them to come up with
specific measures. The fiscal year 2009 period, performance
contract period, which is for fiscal year 2009, did have a
series of very specific performance measures, outcome measures
in the contracts.
Just a few of the examples: timely response to program
approval inquiries; 95 percent of the responses are to be
completed within 14 days, for example. And there are several
other measures that are largely based on timeliness,
responsiveness to desires for program approvals, or inquiries
or denials that can ultimately turn around in approvals.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I will have more questions, but I will
turn it over to Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the SAAs, has the VA provided sufficient training to
help implement the new Post-9/11 GI Bill? Have they given you
enough to work with?
Mr. Rowe. Well, I could speak as a director, Mr. Boozman.
And when I think something is necessary, sometimes, I can--or
sometimes I have since the beginning of this year,
particularly, as requests have come in, as you have heard from
the other panel members, I have suspended some of the other
things that we normally would do because I thought it was more
important to spend my resources on getting this kind of stuff
done.
They don't really--VA doesn't really monitor a weekly,
monthly basis what it is we do. We submit a quarterly report,
and it is numbers. And in those numbers, sometimes are allowed
to put a narrative, and we put a narrative, places we have
gone, things that we have done.
But--so I am going to say that I have done some activities,
not questionable, but in my mind that were necessary. And so,
therefore, I kind of delayed some other things and kind of mush
them around as much as you possibly can to accomplish the
requests from institutions, from veterans, from Guard members,
from my own people in the State.
Did that answer your question, sir?
Mr. Boozman. Well, I guess really what I am trying to get
at, are the SAAs nationwide, are they trained enough to
implement the new GI Bill?
Mr. Rowe. I think we are. I think the VA has done, I have
been to a few of the things that Keith and people in his shop
have done. And I think they have provided some very valuable
information. I attended a big conference they had in
Cincinnati. There were over 500 certifying officials in that
room, and the team that was there spent a good deal of time
talking about the various intricacies, and as you know, it is a
very intricate program. So I would say, yes.
Mr. Gebhart. I could echo that.
Mr. Wellman. Congressman Boozman, I concur. I think the VA
has done a very good job distributing information to the SAAs,
providing us with training. We have had three Webinars that
were specifically designed for State Approving Agencies. A
couple of hours of training. I think there is probably more
forthcoming. They have put out a lot of information on the Web
sites, and I think they have done a good job of disseminating
information about the Post-9/11 GI Bill to the SAAs.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. We appreciate you being here. My
counsel tells me that you are from his hometown also of West
Point, Iowa. And that is kind of unusual to have two West
Point, Iowa, people, I am sure, at a Congressional hearing at
the same time. And then I think you have got your son Elek with
you also. Where is he? Very good. Good to have you here.
Mr. Wilson, you mentioned the contract and things. And I
think what we are trying to do is really see what metrics, what
accountability is in place. Can you mention some other things
that you are trying to do?
Mr. Wilson. In terms of the specific performance measures
for 2009?
Mr. Boozman. Sure.
Mr. Wilson. Just a sample of some other metrics in place
right now: initiate corrective action required as a result of a
supervisory visit, 95 percent of those within 10 days; timely
follow-up involving corrective actions, 95 percent within 30
days; timely follow-up on denial of benefits to veterans by VA,
95 percent within 10 days.
So what we are trying to focus on in 2009, which really was
our first incarnation of going to an outcome measure is
focusing on the timeliness. Because so much of what we do is
critical to the veteran because they are basically dependent on
our benefits month to month. And because of the timing for
benefit payments, obviously, that is important.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
I appreciated your story, Mr. Rowe, again I can see the
merit in reviewing a place like Princeton periodically, and yet
I guess our problem is that we are concerned about who is
reviewing the reviewer. And that is really what we are trying
to do today is make sure that we have some accountability
there. I think we all need that.
I have got it every 2 years with the voters. And like I
said, that is our job.
And so, hopefully, working together we can get some good
metrics to do what we all want to do, and that is serve
veterans.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just a few more questions.
Mr. Rowe, in your written testimony, on page four this goes
to the points that you were making to some of the responses to
my questions on the second panel in terms of returning money
and why that may be necessary. But in your testimony, you state
that many times these shortfalls can be met if the opportunity
to use remaining Federal funds is available through the
supplemental process. Can you elaborate more what you mean by
that?
Mr. Rowe. Sure. I can or Mr. Wilson can. The VA allows or
they state an up front contract figure that you are allowed for
that fiscal year. You are allowing to draw down a
reimbursement, request for reimbursement for your costs
associated with that. If you do not have costs, in other words,
if you have a $500,000 contract but you only spent $400,000,
that means the State doesn't get to keep the money, because as
you know, it is a cost reimbursement. At some point in time,
the State, once they feel comfortable that their bills are
going to be met, the VA will ask, are there any funds that you
are not going to use this year. And at some point in time,
depending on my fiscal people saying, okay, you can do that, we
tell the VA those moneys are now available for other States who
need additional resources.
Last year I think it was 18 States that needed additional
resources. And so, then, the VA would decide or should decide
how they are going to meet those 18 requests from the people
who turned money back in.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. To the situation that you
described in terms of why in your office you had to return
money, if we were to authorize spending at a higher level for
State Approving Agencies and the contract was higher than you
got from the VA, would there be anything that Congress could do
to address any of your concerns? You described those conditions
but if there is a hiring freeze, there is nothing we can do
about that. It seems that this goes back to the
responsibilities as we define them for the SAAs and how we
would like to use some metrics to better fashion what the
contractual obligations would look like in light of either new
needs that you are providing, can you just comment on that? I
was interested in what you described and why that is a reason
for some of the funds.
As I stated in my question, I am not trying to suggest that
you are overfunded. As you may recall, I helped lead the charge
on getting the permanent ceiling moved up to $19 million, and
before I lead a charge to getting more money, I want to make
sure that we have the information that backs up that request.
So maybe you could comment on that.
Mr. Rowe. Sure, I would like to, I can't speak for how
close we are, how close the SAAs were for spending the $19
million last year. I don't have that information. Mr. Wilson
might.
But I could say, we are going to get very close very soon.
And I can't predict what is going to happen in the future. My
Governor may decide, you can hire X amount of people next year.
He could lift that hiring freeze at any point. We could have a
tremendous surge in new eligible persons.
I know, in my State, I work in Military Veterans Affairs,
and we just had 3,500 new Guard members, probably most or all
are entitled to some benefit level under that program. And that
is going to mean a tremendous amount of new people involved in
all the programs that we already have. I don't know how I can
predict how I am going to meet that need at this point in time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that, and working closely
with our State department of military affairs, I know that you
are in a very good position to be reaching Guard and
Reservists. Probably better than what some of our Federal
agencies have been able to do, given the problems that we have
had with the U.S. Department of Defense doing mailings about
benefits and I think some of the issues that we have seen maybe
even with the VA and the Department of Labor, although that
varies from State to State as we have seen.
Mr. Wilson, I think you elaborated in your initial
testimony, you had looked at sort of the issue of possible
duplication. Mr. Rowe provided in terms of DOE not approving
programs, but if we compare--and one of the witnesses on the
second panel said, look, someone from the SAA and the
Department of Education, they are both out there, so that there
is something going on, whether we call it approving,
accreditation, review, where there may be potential
duplication. It sounds like you have addressed it to a degree.
Mr. Wilson, in terms of what you laid out in some amendments
that you have discussed in your testimony with the Subcommittee
staff; is that correct?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you agree with the Veterans Service
Organizations testifying today and the State Approving Agencies
that the SAAs need more funding?
Mr. Wilson. We don't at this point based on current active
facilities as well as current statutory requirements. And that
in large respects gets to what we would like to see addressed
in the statutory responsibility.
There is a difference between accreditation and program
approval. And speaking very generally, accreditation has to do
with whether or not an institution can meet its mission. And
the program approval is more, from my perspective, a micro look
at specifics--meeting the specific needs of veterans within
those programs.
So there is a different core, perhaps a different core
desire there in terms of those two processes. But we are also
under the belief that there are efficiencies that can be gained
there.
What we are looking for and I agree with everything that
has been stated concerning the complexity of our programs, four
core programs that we administer, many of our participants are
eligible for all four or two or three, and there is going to be
a strong need to provide outreach.
I don't believe, though, as one of the previous individuals
mentioned, that will die down after the first couple of years.
We have at our core a very complex program. I believe it is
incumbent upon all of us to do our best to make sure that we
have folks out there in the field, with the SAAs are uniquely
positioned for that, to provide that one-to-one contact with
the veteran and help them make the decisions on how the
programs best work for them, versus necessarily a specific
absolute program approval process.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that.
Mr. Boozman, do you have anything further?
Mr. Boozman. Just one thing, Madam Chair.
In your written testimony, Mr. Wilson, you mentioned things
that you thought should be doing and perhaps some new things,
could you guys at some point provide us, provide the Committee,
with a kind of a priority list of statutory duties? Again, your
testimony was good and really alluded to that, but I would like
to know, I think we all would like to know specifically where
you, where VA sees where your real priorities are and how we
should implement that and if we need to help by doing whatever
we need to do.
Mr. Wilson. Certainly.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, we will want to work on this a
little bit more in terms of drawing the distinctions in
consultation with counsel. I don't want to lose the forest
through the trees here. I appreciate that you are looking to
find efficiencies because accreditation is not the same as
approval, but we believe that maybe the Department of Education
is working with other entities to do a more thorough review,
even though they don't do an approval process. So it sounds
like you have initiated this and are trying to find those
efficiencies, and we want to continue to work with you and
appreciate the work that you, Mr. Rowe and Mr. Gebhart, have
undertaken as it relates to your own performance-oriented
measures that are very difficult and tricky to develop.
As we do that, that is in no way indicative of the desire
of me, I can't speak for the other Subcommittee Members, of
somehow trying to narrow and fit what the SAAs do with a $19
million annual budget. Part of our effort to get it to that was
to make up for what was happening even before we passed the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
I couldn't agree more on the outreach that is going to be
necessary and likely ongoing and what that means in terms of
amendments you have offered. As we look to the set of
responsibilities that we are going to be looking to State
Approving Agencies for, that there very well may be a good case
to be made that the recent statutory modification that we made
in the National Defense Authorization Act up to $19 million is
now outdated already.
I think this is the beginning of that discussion, and that
analysis and the need for follow up and more information. We
appreciate that you have already undertaken some of what we
think will be necessary to meet the objectives of the
Subcommittee and of your respective organization.
With that, I thank you for your testimony, for being here
at the Subcommittee, and your ongoing commitment to our
Nation's veterans. The hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
My colleagues may recall that we conducted a hearing on April 2007
on the subject of State Approving Agencies. In that hearing we sought
to determine how the Department of Veterans Affairs was following up on
a 2007 GAO report titled ``Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap
in Approving Education and Training Programs and to Assess State
Approving Programs'' to ensure Federal resources are not duplicated and
provide the VA with stronger oversight authority over SAAs.
Today's hearing provides the Subcommittee the opportunity to follow
up on that hearing that will: provide the VA the opportunity to
highlight its progress from 2 years ago; provide us the opportunity to
learn what more can be done to ensure SAAs are making the best use of
its limited resources; and help us determine if Congressional action is
required to ensure our veterans are enrolled in an educational program
where they can meet their educational goals.
As many of our panel members know, the authority of SAAs was
established by Congress in 1947 to ensure that veterans and eligible
dependents can use the GI Bill educational entitlement in an approved
educational program. Under contract with the VA, the key function of
SAAs is to ensure that education and training programs meet VA
standards through a range of approval activities. In addition to these
responsibilities, the SAAs' role has grown from what was first provided
in Title 38, Chapter 36 which will be discussed in today's hearing.
In the last Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Bob Filner,
we successfully provided a permanent yearly funding at $19 million.
Today we will hear from representatives of the State Approving Agencies
who are seeking additional resources to help them meet their
obligations to our veterans and the VA. I look forward to hearing from
all the panelists to see what additional resources may be warranted, or
in the alternative if SAAs can be streamlined to use their limited
resources more effectively.
I would like to thank all our panelists for the feedback they
provided in today's hearing. Thank you for all your hard work to ensure
that our nation's veterans are afforded the best educational
opportunities to succeed in life after military service.
I can assure you that this Subcommittee will follow up on the
recommendations provided in today's hearing. We also look forward to a
smooth implementation of the new Post-9/11 Montgomery GI Bill.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and everyone with us today.
The State Approving Agencies are VA's frontline partners in
ensuring veterans receive quality education and training. Without the
State Approving Agencies, additional VA staff would be needed to
provide many of the functions now done by the SAAs.
Today's higher education system is vastly different from that of
the 1940s. For example there is now more oversight by states and
national accrediting agencies on all schools. There are now more
schools, many of which have multiple campuses; more training programs,
which also have several campuses; and more options such as distance
learning, to access these programs. Online education is experiencing
rapid growth and some fully accredited institutions have a majority of
their students participating through online courses and many schools
now offer blended attendance featuring a mix of classroom and online
courses.
Education and training has also experienced significant cost growth
from the period of the first GI Bill. Using normal inflation rates, the
$500 paid to schools and the $50 per month living stipend to cover all
costs under the WWII GI Bill would now be $10,418. However, according
to the College Board, the average tuition and fees at a public
institution is now about $18,500.
Last year in PL 110-389, Congress required VA to ensure that VA and
the SAAs were coordinating their functions with other agencies such as
the Department of Education as a means to ensure we are not having any
duplication. Title 38 also lists the statutory duties of the SAAs.
The question is whether, given all the changes in education, we
need to refocus the efforts of the SAAs. It would seem to me that the
public university system and what are referred to as recognized leading
national universities, such as those listed by Newsweek and other
publications, need little additional oversight. Courses or degrees
offered by those schools should be accepted as meeting VA standards.
With the increased level of benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
proliferation of non-degree and OJT/Apprenticeship programs, additional
oversight of those programs would seem appropriate.
I would also note that title 38 allows states to add approval
requirements. I suspect if we had a checklist from each SAA, we would
find that beyond the statutory requirements, significant variation in
what they look for.
Madam Chair, the SAAs will again be pressing for additional funding
beyond the $19 million currently authorized. To me, we should decide
what the SAA duties should be and VA should be a part of that decision
process. Once we have done that, we should pay them for that work.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy H. Bishop,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to express my strong support for
the State Approving Agencies (SAAs) and their crucial role in
supporting our veterans.
I have first-hand experience with the SAAs from my career as an
administrator at Southampton College in Southampton, New York.
Representatives from the New York SAA would visit campus annually to
assess the quality of Southampton's programs and ensure our veteran
students were taking full advantage of the academic and extracurricular
activities we offered.
Southampton College was a fully accredited institution of higher
education, but it was very helpful for us to have an external quality
assessment each year. Throughout my career in academia, the SAAs made
administering the GI Bill benefits easier for Southampton as an
institution, and helped us to better serve our dedicated veteran
students.
Today, as a Member of Congress, I have a new appreciation for their
diligence in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are supporting only bona
fide programs, and that veterans are receiving the top quality
education they have earned.
I was proud to vote for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and to see it signed
into law as the most significant veterans benefit in America's history.
The unprecedented scope of this program has required a dramatic
increase in activity at all agencies responsible for administering the
GI Bills, including the SAAs. However, the Federal commitment to the
SAAs has not been enhanced to meet the increasing demands of this new
mission, which include:
Performing outreach activities to increase the
utilization of the GI Bills
Providing advice and guidance to veterans, guard,
reservists, and other GI Bill benefit recipients, as well as educators,
trainers and others who counsel veterans
Training VA School Certifying Officials at all
educational institutions and job training establishments; and
Assisting the Federal Government in eliminating waste,
fraud and abuse
Other witnesses on the panel will be able to detail more
specifically how the recent freeze in funding has affected the SAAs;
however, I believe it is clear that they have been asked to do too much
for too many with too little. Furthermore, the need for enhanced
funding is critical as the 21st Century GI Bill begins paying benefits
this fall.
Having created this landmark program, Congress must make adequate
provision to ensure it benefits our veterans as intended. I am
gratified that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs shares my strong
support for the SAAs and views them as a valued partner that deserves
additional support.
Once again, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee today. Like our Nation's veterans, the
SAAs deserve the highest level of support from Congress and I hope to
have the opportunity to vote for an appropriate increase in funding in
this session.
Prepared Statement of Mark Walker,
Deputy Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion
The mission of these State Approving Agencies (SAAs) is to provide
technical assistance and regulatory expertise to educational and
training administrators to ensure that quality programs are available
to veterans and other eligible persons. SAAs approve programs leading
to vocational, educational or professional objectives. These include
vocational certificates, high school diplomas, GEDs, degrees,
apprenticeships, on-the-job training, flight training, correspondence
training and programs leading to required certification to practice in
a profession. SAAs have not had an increase in funding in the last four
years (inflation rose 14 percent during this time period); however, VA
was allowed to conduct substantial hiring to process new claims. By
contrast, SAAs have not been in a position to hire even though the
Post-9/11 GI Bill workload has ballooned for these agencies as well. In
order to carry out its expanded missions in light of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, SAAs will require an additional $5 million per year for the next
3 years (total of $15 million). The Post-9/11 GI Bill has dramatically
changed the work requirement for SAAs. Adequate funding will provide
additional staffing and other resources for SAAs to fulfill its
mission. The benefit stream flows through SAAs as well as the VA, and
without fully functioning SAAs, veterans and other benefit recipients
will not receive their educational benefits in a smooth, orderly, and
timely manner.
In a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in March 2007
entitled ``VA Student Financial Aid; Management Actions Needed to
Reduce Overlap in Approving Education and Training Programs and to
Assess State Approving Agencies'' (GAO-07-384) focused on the need to
``ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.''
GAO recommended that VA should require SAAs to track and report data on
resources spent on approval activities, such as site visits, catalog
review, and outreach in a cost-efficient manner. The American Legion
agrees. Additionally, GAO recommended that VA establish outcome-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of SAAs
efforts. The American Legion fully agrees. Finally, GAO recommended
that VA should collaborate with other agencies to identify any
duplicate efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process. The American Legion
agrees.
The American Legion strongly supports SAAs and is committed to
working with them along with the VA and other Federal agencies to
ensure that America's veterans receive the finest education and
training programs so they can live a dignified and successful life
after serving this great nation. Again, thank you for the opportunity
to submit the opinion of The American Legion on this issue.
__________
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit the views of The American
Legion regarding the Evolution of State Approving Agencies.
State Approving Agencies
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) are responsible for approving and
supervising programs of education for the training of veterans,
eligible dependents, and eligible members of the National Guard and the
Reserves. SAAs grew out of the original GI Bill of Rights that became
law in 1944. Though SAAs have their foundation in Federal law, SAAs
operate as part of state governments. SAAs approve programs leading to
vocational, educational or professional objectives. These include
vocational certificates, high school diplomas, GEDs, degrees,
apprenticeships, on-the-job training, flight training, correspondence
training and programs leading to required certification to practice in
a profession.
Effective March 1, 2001, SAAs assumed responsibility for approving
organizations offering tests required to secure local, state, Federal
or industry-based licenses or certifications. SAAs maintain a computer
database that lists all approved education and training facilities in
the state and their approved program offerings. The mission of these
SAAs is to provide technical assistance and regulatory expertise to
educational and training administrators to ensure that quality programs
are available to veterans and other eligible persons.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act was signed into law
on June 30, 2008, and is scheduled for implementation on August 1,
2009. Four very different education programs will soon exist: the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve,
and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program.
This new bill goes well beyond helping to pay for tuition and fees;
many veterans who served after September 11, 2001, will get full
tuition and fees, a new monthly housing stipend, and a $1,000 a year
stipend for books and supplies. The new bill also gives Reserve and
Guard members who have been activated since 9/11 access to the same GI
Bill benefits.
Another added benefit to the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the Yellow Ribbon
Program. This program allows institutions of higher learning (degree
granting institutions) in the United States to voluntarily enter into
an agreement with VA to fund tuition expenses that exceed the highest
public in-state undergraduate tuition rate. The institution can
contribute up to 50 percent of those expenses and VA will match the
same amount as the institution, enhancing school reimbursements and the
value of the New GI Bill. Veterans who are going through a graduate
program or seeking out-of-state tuition and fees can also use this
program. Regarding concerns of proper resources to implement the new
program, VA has hired and begun training 530 temporary veterans' claims
examiners to support implementation and assure payments will be made
beginning August 1, 2009.
It should be noted that SAAs have not had an increase in funding in
the last four years (inflation rose 14 percent during this time
period). As already mentioned, VA was allowed to conduct substantial
hiring to process new claims. By contrast, SAAs have not been in a
position to hire even though the Post-9/11 GI Bill workload has
ballooned for these agencies as well. In order to carry out its
expanded missions in light of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, SAAs will require
an additional $5 million per year for the next 3 years (total of $15
million). This funding would allow SAAs to continue to fulfill these
duties:
make determinations regarding the quality and integrity
of all kinds of learning experiences (institutional, job training,
flight, correspondence, etc.);
work with employers to develop and enroll veterans in job
training programs (Apprenticeships and OJT);
assess and approve tests for professional and
occupational licensing and certification;
perform outreach activities to increase the utilization
of the GI Bills including briefings during transition assistance
programs (TAP) and retirement seminars, and sending out mailings to
recently discharged veterans and Selected Reserve personnel;
provide advice and guidance to veterans, guardsmen,
reservists, and other GI Bill benefit recipients, as well as educators,
trainers, and others who counsel veterans; and,
train VA School Certifying Officials at all educational
institutions and job training establishments.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill has dramatically changed the work requirement
for SAAs. Adequate funding will provide additional staffing and other
resources for SAAs to fulfill its mission. The benefit stream flows
through SAAs as well as the VA, and without fully functioning SAAs,
veterans and other benefit recipients will not receive their
educational benefits in a smooth, orderly, and timely manner.
In a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in March 2007
entitled ``VA Student Financial Aid; Management Actions Needed to
Reduce Overlap in Approving Education and Training Programs and to
Assess State Approving Agencies'' (GAO-07-384) focused on the need to
``ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.''
GAO recommended that VA should require SAAs to track and report data on
resources spent on approval activities, such as site visits, catalog
review, and outreach in a cost-efficient manner. The American Legion
agrees. Additionally, GAO recommended that VA establish outcome-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of SAAs
efforts. The American Legion fully agrees. Finally, GAO recommended
that VA should collaborate with other agencies to identify any
duplicate efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process. The American Legion
agrees.
The American Legion strongly supports SAAs and is committed to
working with them along with the VA and other Federal agencies to
ensure that America's veterans receive the finest education and
training programs so they can live a dignified and successful life
after serving this great nation. Again, thank you for the opportunity
to submit the opinion of The American Legion on this issue.
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley,
National Legislative Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide AMVETS' views concerning State Approving Agencies.
In March 2007, GAO reported on ``VA Student Financial Aid:
Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approving Education and
Training Programs and the Assess State Approving Agencies.'' The report
held three major recommendations: First, VA should require SAAs to
track and report data on resources spent on approval activities such as
site visits, catalog review, and outreach in a cost-effective manner;
second, VA should collaborate with other agencies to identify any
duplicative efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process; and finally, VA should
establish outcome-oriented performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of SAA efforts. (GAO 07-775T) VA concurred with these
findings and promised to find solutions to these issues in FY08.
However, AMVETS has been unable to locate any indication that VA has
made efforts to correct these deficiencies by the FY08 budget cycle or
in any subsequent year. The 467 page Department of Veterans Affairs
FY08 Performance and Accountability Report failed to mention any steps
that are being taken to improve the SAA's effectiveness. As early as
1988, GAO reported on the issue of agency overlap of program approval.
AMVETS believes there is added value in SAA's approval, training and
oversight role, but without accountability of time and resources, and
tangible outcome measures the effectiveness and efficiency of SAA will
never be know.
First AMVETS questions the amount of time that is invested on
program approval and review. The most recent review of SAA's time
allocation that AMVETS could find is from 1988. This data found that
nearly 36 percent of SAA's time is spent approving and reviewing
programs. This is disturbing to AMVETS in light of the fact that a
majority of the programs have already been approved by other government
agencies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1874A.001
(Analysis of the Education Program Approval Process: A Program
Evaluation, May 1988)
AMVETS understands the unique role the SAA has in ensuring veterans
programs are approved, but with that said, nearly 80 percent of all
programs that are approved by Department of Education (DOE) are also
approved by SAA, and that by law, title 38, section 3687(a)(1), all
apprenticeships must meet Department of Labor (DOL) standards before
they can be accepted by VA. So even though there are unique factors
that SAA looks at to determine eligible programs, there is an inherent
redundancy in the approval process between SAA and other approving
agencies. Nearly two and half years have passed since VA stated they
``will initiate contact with appropriate officials at the Department of
Education and Labor to identify any duplicative efforts'' with no
indication of changing their policy to reduce duplication. (GAO-07-384,
Appendix II) AMVETS humbly requests that Congress task VA with
contacting the Department of Education and Labor to truly determine the
areas of overlap and report back to Congress their findings and their
plan to reduce the duplication.
Second, VA also boasts that they ``diligently track SAA
activities.'' The issue AMVETS has with this tracking process is that
SAA only tracks activities (outputs) and not the results or
improvements (outcomes) of the activities. Reporting how many sight
visits SAA has made or the amount of training that was provided only
accounts for the hours worked and not actual results the visits and
training had in improving services to veterans. To truly understand the
efficiency and effectiveness of a program SAA must track the outcome
measures of the work they conduct. It is also impossible to track the
efficiency and effectiveness of a program when there are no internal
controls over the financial assets. VA provides SAA with $19 million
per year with no expectation that SAA report back on the use of the
funds. The only mechanism that is in place to monitor the productivity
of SAA is a self-evaluation and review. PL 100-323 ``Requires the
Administrator: (1) to conduct an annual evaluation of each SAA and
provide SAAs an opportunity to comment on the evaluation; (2) supervise
functionally the provision of course-approval services by States; and
(3) cooperate in developing a uniform national curriculum for training
of employees of SAA. Requires SAAs carrying out contracts with the
Administrator to apply qualification and performance standards to SAA
personnel.'' VA's response to this law was to develop the Joint Peer
Review Group (JPRG). This group meets annually to review each of the
SAA's self-assessed performance. AMVETS questions the sincerity of
these reviews, not solely based on the fact that it is a self-
assessment reviewed by their peers, but by the fact that these reviews
are not accessible to the public. SAA lacks the two key components in
determining efficiency and effectiveness of a program: accountability
of resources and data that proves services improved because of the
program.
In conclusion, AMVETS believes that SAA can provide value to
veterans, but until there are oversight and accountability mechanisms
in place, the degree of value cannot be determined. It is for these
reasons that AMVETS recommends: (a) that SAA begin reporting back to VA
their allocation of funds; (b) that a real effort to identify program
approval overlaps takes place with a plan of how SAA will eliminate the
overlaps; (c) that SAA will develop outcome measures for their sight
visits and training programs and report them to VA and the public
annually and; (d) that the annual JPRG report be presented to VA and
the public.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for providing AMVETS the
opportunity to present our views on issue. This concludes my testimony
and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Patrick Campbell,
Chief Legislative Counsel, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), thank you
for the opportunity to testify today regarding the evolution of State
Approving Agencies. State Approving Agencies play a critical role in
the administration of GI Bill benefits and protecting against abuse of
these benefits.
In 2007 veterans attended over 8,700 different colleges,
universities and trade schools-all approved by State Approving
Agencies. Overall, the VA has over 27,000 approved education programs
monitored by State Approving Agencies. The Post-9/11 GI Bill has
created an opportunity to expand and grow State Approving Agencies
which have over 60 years of experience in connecting states and
veterans with their GI Bill benefits.
SAAs play a critical role in administering GI Bill benefits.
The original WW II GI Bill authorized the Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs, ``from time to time . . . [to] secure from the
appropriate agency of each state a list of education and training
institutions (including industrial establishments) . . . which are
qualified and equipped to furnish education or training.\1\'' State
Approving Agencies were tasked to certify that education programs were
qualified to teach returning veterans. Since this initial mandate 60
years ago, the basic role of the SAAs has changed very little.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 4, Part VIII, 78 P.L. 346, Servicemen's Readjustment Act
1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently State Approving Agencies are still federally contracted
state employees who certify that education programs, vocational
programs and national examinations meet basic VA standards. Newer
duties include site visits to educational facilities, technical
assistance for VA approved programs, outreach, liaising with other
service providers and contract management. SAAs visit schools once
every 1-3 years and review criteria such as student achievement,
curricula, program objectives, facilities, and recruiting and admission
standards. Below is a list of approval criteria and the corresponding
standards contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. Non-accredited
institutions have tougher standards than accredited institutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Accredited Accredited
Approval Criteria \2\ Institutions Institutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Operation CFR 21.4251 CFR 21.4251
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accreditation Status CFR 21.4254(a) CFR 21.4253
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality, Content and Length CFR 21.4254(c)(1) CFR 21.4253
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualifications of Personnel CFR 21.4254(c)(1), CFR 21.4253
(c)(2), (c)(3),
(c)(12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adequacy of Facilities CFR CFR 21.4253
21.4254(b)(10),
(c)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Soundness CFR 21.4254(c)(9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertising, Sales, Enrollment CFR 21.4252(h), CFR 21.4252(h)
Prac.s CFR
21.4254(c)(10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Policy CFR 21.4254(b)(4) CFR 21.4253(e)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Calendar CFR 21.4254(b)(3),
(c)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee Schedule CFR 21.4254(b)(8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refund Policy CFR 21,
4254(c)(13),
(b)(9), CFR
21.4255
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendance Policy CFR 21.4254(b)(5) CFR 21.4253(d)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Standards CFR 21.4254(b)(6), CFR
(c)(7) 21.4253(d)(1),
(d)(2), (s)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conduct Policy CFR 21.4254(b)(7), CFR
(c)(7) 21.4253(d)(1)(i)
, (d)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit for Previous Education CFR CFR 21.4253(d)(3)
21.4254(b)(12),
(c)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Precluded CFR 21.4252, CFR CFR 21.4252
21.4265(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Limitations CFR 21.4201, CFR CFR 21.4201
21.4254(c)(11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs at a Branch or Extension CFR 21.4266 CFR 21.4266
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Outlines CFR 21.4254(c)(5),
(b)(11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resident Instruction CFR 21.4200(o)(i), CFR
(g), (r); 21.4200(o)(i),
21.4280(f) (g), (r);
21.4280(f)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Training CFR 21.4233(a) CFR 21.4233(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correspondence CFR CFR
21.4200(o)(iii), 21.4200(o)(iii),
CFR 21.4256 CFR 21.4256
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Study CFR 21.4280(c) CFR 21.4280(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Training CFR 21.4265 CFR 21.4265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combinations of Instruction CFR 21.4233, CFR CFR 21.4233, CFR
21.4273(c), CFR 21.4273(c), CFR
21.4279 21.4279
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Post-9/11 GI Bill created a new responsibility for State
Approving Agencies. All of which, significantly impact a large
population of veterans and affect the overall cost of the benefit. The
tuition and fees benefit of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is based on the most
expensive, instate undergraduate public school program in each state.
State Approving Agencies were tasked with reviewing each and every
public school program in order to establish the appropriate state cap
for tuition and fees. These tuition caps affect tens of thousands of
veterans attending graduate programs and private universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Guide to Approval for Institutions and Educational Programs
enrolling Veterans, http://www.ctdhe.org/vet/SchoolApproval.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAAs will protect against fraud, waste and abuse
State Approving Agencies are on the frontlines of preserving the
integrity of GI Bill benefits. This recommendation was published in a
report in 1956, reviewing lessons learned from the WWII GI Bill, ``A
readjustment benefit should include adequate safeguards to assure that
benefits actually serve a bona fide readjustment purpose. Such
safeguards should not be carried to the point where they deprive the
veteran of a reasonable freedom of choice--but that freedom should be
exercised within limits which assure value received.\3\'' The report
acknowledged that some veterans used their WWII GI Bill benefits simply
as a source of income, indulging in recreational and/or a vocational
programs to qualify. In response, Congress passed tighter rules and
regulations governing the use of GI Bill benefits, implemented chiefly
by State Approving Agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ House Select Committee to Investigate Educational, Training,
and Loan Guaranty Programs Under GI Bill, H.Rep. No. 1375, 82d Cong.,
2d Sess. p. 272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, like the WWII GI Bill, pays tuition and fees
directly to the school. These types of payments ``contributed to some
problems connected with proprietary schools\4\'' and were later
eschewed for a single payment plan to the individual not the schools.
IAVA strongly supported reinstating tuition and fees payments directly
to the school to help veterans overcome the huge upfront costs
associated with higher education. However, we also acknowledge that
these types of payments require close monitoring because they are
vulnerable to abuse. Historically, many of the controls needed to
ensure proper use of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits have already been put
in place (see chart above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ House Select Committee to Investigate Educational, Training,
and Loan Guaranty Programs Under GI Bill, H.Rep. No. 1375, 82d Cong.,
2d Sess. p. 243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, due to creative interpretations of the tuition and
fees benefits by the Department of Veterans, State Approving Agencies
do not have the tools or guidelines to prevent schools from
dramatically maximizing their portion of GI Bill benefits from the VA.
The VA quizzically concocted a reimbursement scheme that created two
distinct tuition and fee caps. The tuition cap is paid on a per credit
basis and the fees cap is paid on a per term basis. The VA has failed
to define the critical provisions of this new benefit, including what
constitutes an ``academic term'', ``credits'', ``tuition'' and
``fees.'' This lack of clarity means that schools have wide latitude to
simply adjust the names of their educations charges, from tuition to
fees or vice versa, and position themselves to receive large sums of
cash from the VA. For example, a veteran enrolled in just one credit
hour in Colorado could still receive upward of $43,000/term in fees
because the fees cap is not dependent on the level of enrollment.
Furthermore, since the length of an academic term is defined by the
school and not VA regulations, a veteran could be enrolled in upwards
of twelve academic terms in 1 year and that school would receive six
times the amount of tuition/fees as a regular semester program. State
Approving Agencies are powerless to prevent approved programs from
milking the system.
IAVA strongly believes that the tuition and fees benefit of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill should be revisited and reworked to ensure both a
generous and fair benefit. In the interim, the VA should issue clear
standards for schools to follow and the State Approving Agencies to
enforce regarding the tuition and fees benefits. Failure to prevent a
few apples from turning rotten may ruin the entire barrel.
Post-9/11 GI Bill presents new opportunities for SAAs
While the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the largest increase in education
benefits since WW II, this generous new benefit is far from intuitive
from a user's perspective. Considering that one of the core duties of
the State Approving Agencies is to do outreach and provide technical
assistance to schools offering approved programs, IAVA believes that
State Approving Agencies are best positioned to conduct increased local
outreach and education on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Over the past year,
the VA has conducted minimal and non-substantial outreach to veterans
explaining their new benefits, though their new GI Bill Web site is a
vast improvement over what previously existed. State Approving Agencies
could work with local schools and VA certifying officials to help
veterans know about their benefits.
Conclusion
State Approving Agencies will account for around 5 percent of the
overall GI Bill budget in 2009. They play a critical role in the
administration of the GI Bill and given the right tools, will save
taxpayers more than their annual allotment by preventing fraud, waste
and abuse. We believe that the VA should look to expand the State
Approving Agency program to include increased outreach and technical
training to help veterans and schools prepare for the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
Prepared Statement of Justin Brown, Legislative Associate,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank
this Committee for the opportunity to testify. The issues under
consideration today are of great importance to our members and the
entire veteran population.
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) continue to play a vital role in
the administration of veterans' education programs. With the passage of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill SAA's mission has dramatically evolved. The Post-
9/11 GI Bill is a complex benefit and a great deal of the
administrational burden lies with SAAs.
Background on State Approving Agencies
State Approving Agencies were created following the passage of the
Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944 to help administer the benefit
while; assisting the Federal Government in preventing waste, fraud, and
abuse; maintaining a high quality learning experience for veterans
utilizing Federal benefits; and assisting veterans transitioning from
the military and into the civilian sector.
The scope and mission of the SAAs has changed relatively little
until recently. Multiple recent legislative changes have increased and
broadened the scope of the SAAs. The most notable included the passage
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in 2001, SAAs were given the role of
actively promoting the development of apprenticeship, on-job-training
programs, and the approval of tests used for licensing and
certification. The legislative action in 2001 was followed with a
funding increase in FY 2003 from $13 million with a graduated increase
to $19 million by FY 2006--their current level of funding. In
consideration of inflation, SAA's funding level has continually eroded
since its last increase in FY 2006.
Current Legal Requirements of State Approving Agencies
SAA's responsibilities are summarized in the Code of Federal
Regulations 38 CFR 21.4151 (b). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3673(a))
(b) State approving agency responsibilities. State approving
agencies are responsible for:
(1) Inspecting and supervising schools within the borders of
their respective States;
(2) Determining those courses which may be approved for the
enrollment of veterans and eligible persons;
(3) Ascertaining whether a school at all times complies with
its established standards relating to the course or courses
which have been approved;
(4) Determining those licensing and certification tests that
may be approved for cost reimbursement to veterans and eligible
persons;
(5) Ascertaining whether an organization or entity offering an
approved licensing or certification test complies at all times
with the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3689; and
(6) Under an agreement with VA rendering services and obtaining
information necessary for the Secretary's approval or
disapproval under chapters 30 through 36, title 38 U.S.C. and
chapters 107 and 1606, title 10 U.S.C., of courses of education
offered by any agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government within the borders of their respective States.
While the CFR certainly reflects the core responsibilities of SAAs
the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) has
produced a list that tends to characterize a more thorough
understanding of their mission.
(1) Making determinations regarding the quality and integrity
of all kinds of learning experiences (institutional, job
training, flight, correspondence, etc.)
(2) Working with employers to develop and enroll veterans in
job training programs (Apprenticeships and OJT).
(3) Assessing and approving tests for professional and
occupational licensing and certification.
(4) Advocate for veterans at state and local levels, and serve
as gatekeepers for the GI Bill.
(5) Provide insights to the DVA and Congress on changes
necessary to make the GI Bills more relevant and responsive.
(6) * Performing outreach activities to increase the
utilization of the GI Bills including; briefings during
transition assistance programs (TAP) and retirement seminars,
and sending out mailings to recently discharged veterans and
Selected Reserve personnel.
(7) * Provide advice and guidance to veterans, guard,
reservists, and other GI Bill benefit recipients, as well as
educators, trainers and others who counsel veterans.
(8) * Training VA School Certifying Officials at all
educational institutions and job training establishments.
(9) * Assist the Federal Government in eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse.
*Missions expanded as a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
Most of the above expanded missions are information based. With a
complex benefit it is imperative that veterans are being provided
correct and timely information. The VFW is aware of multiple instances
in which veterans are getting incorrect information and/or are having
trouble locating quality information. Only recently have decent
resources started to appear in regards to information on the GI Bill.
All of this would lead the VFW to believe that there is an increased
need for highly trained individuals working at the state level. SAAs
ought to be providing the same services as in previous years but also
expanding their scope and ability to fill the much needed expansion of
informational services required of the complex Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The Potential for Increased Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
The VFW believes that it is especially important to emphasize the
increased potential for waste, fraud, and abuse of this benefit. The
changes in the rate of pursuit schedule \1\ and the yellow ribbon
program leave the possibility of large overpayments or underpayments to
veterans attending schools. NASAA has singled this issue out as perhaps
its most manpower intensive mission in consideration of the changes due
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rate of pursuit is the rate at which a veteran pursues the
completion of their degree or training. Constant verification of a
veteran's rate of pursuit is necessary to ensure veterans are not over-
or underpaid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If left unattended, overpayments not corrected for a long period of
time could prove devastating to veterans at no fault of their own.
Overpayments are typically drawn from future payments to veterans and
may leave them with less than adequate funding to maintain their
livelihood. Veterans depend on the benefits process to get it right the
first time and SAAs play a crucial role in the process. The VFW hopes
to see a vigilant staff at both the state and Federal levels, with
adequate resources, working to insure a smooth seamless administration
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill with little or no affect on the quality of
other programs and missions.
Current SAAs Funding Levels Are Insufficient to Meet Needs
While the VA has been amply funded and allotted time to prepare for
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, SAAs are operating at the same level of funding
for their fourth consecutive year. SAA's workload is already
dramatically increasing. Without a similar increase in resources,
certain responsibilities will be neglected thereby decreasing the
programs overall quality for veterans and reducing the insurance of a
quality investment for our Federal Government. For the GI Bill to
remain the first-rate program it is today, SAAs must have the necessary
funding to maintain their critical mission.
SAAs are the face of the GI Bill at the state level. As such, they
are being inundated by VA School Certifying Officials and individual
benefit recipients eager for information. This additional workload,
that requires timely responses, has immediately increased the SAA's
mission particularly in the realm of outreach and training.
There is no question that the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a complex
benefit. Moreover, within the next few years it is likely there will be
legislative changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill that will require
additional outreach and training. SAAs are behind the curve in funding,
have an expanded mission, and are losing time to train and implement
resources that come with an increase in funding.
VFW's Suggested Course of Action
The VFW strongly supports NASAA's request for an additional $5
million dollar appropriation per fiscal year for a total of $24 million
per a fiscal year. The VFW believes this would prove sufficient for the
State Approving Agency's newly expanded workload. The VFW also requests
any increase be tied to a cost of living index to reduce the gradual
deterioration of the funding.
Prepared Statement of Charles Rowe, President,
National Association of State Approving Agencies
Introduction:
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of
the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before
you today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies (NASAA) to provide a historical perspective and overview of
the current role the State Approving Agencies (SAAs) are playing in
approving and supervising programs of study and in implementing the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
This testimony is presented in four (4) parts. The executive
summary, and three (3) sections which provide a summary of expansions
in the SAAs missions, direct answers to the Subcommittee's questions,
and concluding comments and SAAs survey results.
Section I. Executive Summary
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) were created shortly after the
enactment of the original GI Bill to work with the Department of
Veterans Affairs to assist in the preventing of waste, fraud and abuse,
ensure credible learning experiences for vets, and assist veterans in
successfully transitioning into the civilian world. Chapter 36 of Title
38 U.S. Code delineates in some detail the provisions for funding and
the responsibilities of the SAAs. SAAs have historically been the
``face'' of the GI Bill at the state level, and their contributions to
its success have been demonstrated for over six decades.
With the impending implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill a number
of the historical missions of the SAAs have been significantly
expanded: The amount and scope of required advice and guidance to
veterans, guard, and reservists via outreach and other means has
surged. The in-depth training and technical assistance that must be
provided to Certifying Officials surrounding the new certification
procedures such as the special ``yellow ribbon'' considerations
regarding overpayments even for full-time students and the like, have
ballooned, while the efforts which will be required to assist the
Federal Government in the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse are
set to skyrocket as the new Post-9/11 GI Bill takes effect in a few
weeks.
This increased tasking, mission expansion, and the endless requests
for training and assistance are unprecedented in the experience of the
SAAs, and will require significantly increased staffing. Just as the
DVA was forced to hire new personnel to handle the demands of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, so to, the SAAs must hire in order to be able to properly
carry out these additional training and supervision requirements.
SAAs are part of a ``DVA/SAA/VCO/Benefit Recipient'' network and
continuum. Now that the tasking for all parts of this network has
rather dramatically increased, SAAs must be funded and staffed to the
new missions or the entire benefit chain will suffer accordingly.
The current funding level for all of the SAAs is unrealistically
low given this new environment. SAA funding has remained at the $19
million level for four (4) years while during that period the cost of
living has increased by roughly 15 percent. In order to efficiently and
effectively accomplish the expanded Post-9/11 GI Bill missions, at a
minimum, SAAs require an additional $15 million over the next three (3)
years, and we recommend that it be phased in over a 3 year period, $5
million in 2010, $5 million in 2011, and $5 million in 2012.
When Chapter 33 was announced the VA was allowed to hire over 500
new personnel in recognition of the additional work burdens imposed by
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The SAAs, by contrast, have not been in a
position to hire, because of static funding, even though the Post-9/11
workload has ballooned for the SAAs as well.
SAAs are a critical part of a DVA/SAA/SCO/benefit recipient
continuum. The educational benefit stream to all benefit recipients
flows right through the SAAs as well as the VA, and without a fully
functioning SAA, veterans and other benefit recipients will not receive
their educational benefits in a smooth, orderly, and timely fashion,
and that would deny them the best possible service which Congress
expects and our veterans have earned and most surely deserve.
In closing, Mrs. Chairwoman, I want to sincerely thank you and this
subcommittee for the opportunity you have provided NASSA today to
explain why it is so necessary that the SAAs be given the resources to
carry out the expanded and critically important missions that arise
from the implementation of new Post-9/11 GI Bill. We would be happy to
respond to any questions.
Section II. SAAs Mission Expansion as a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
Historical Background: Shortly after its enactment, Congress
requested that the states provide assistance with the administration of
the Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944. It has always been the
responsibility of states to:
1. Assist the Federal Government in preventing waste, fraud and
abuse
2. Insure the credibility of the learning experiences in which
veterans engage
3. Assist veterans in making a successful transition from the
military to the civilian world
In order to carry out these missions and achieve their objectives,
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) were created. The constitutional basis
for this is the legal principle that, if not mentioned in the
Constitution, a task remains the function of the states. Since
education is not specifically mentioned, the states, and not the
Federal Government, retain responsibility for the education in their
respective states.
Hence, State Approving Agencies are to work in concert with the
Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the Congress and the
President to achieve the above objectives. Currently Chapter 36 of
Title 38, U.S. Code provides the guidance on how the states are to
fulfill their responsibilities in the administration of the GI Bills,
while also establishing the parameters for the types and levels of
interaction that are to occur between the Federal Government (VA) and
the states (SAAs). The separate and distinct responsibilities of both
the states and Federal Government are clearly spelled out in the Code.
Section 3674(a) (1) authorizes the Secretary of the Department ``to
enter into contracts or agreements'' and addresses the nature of the
Secretary's responsibilities in terms of covering the expenses incurred
by states, and indicates, ``. . ., the Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts or agreements with the State and local agencies to pay
such State and local agencies for the reasonable and necessary expenses
of salary and travel incurred by employees of such agencies and an
allowance for administrative expenses . . .''
Section 3674(a) (4) specifically provides the amount of the funds
that will be made available to states to carry out their
responsibilities, and the funds are viewed as a non-discretionary
expenditure.
SAAs are the ``face'' of the GI Bill at the state level and they
make major contributions to the success of the various GI Bills in many
ways. These contributions far exceed the proportionate amount of funds
received by these agencies when compared to the amount of benefits
provided to veterans and other GI Bill eligible persons.
In order to carry out its expanded SAA missions in the light of the
new GI Bill, SAAs will require close to a doubling of the current
funding over the next three (3) years.
SAA Missions:
1) Making determinations regarding the quality and integrity of
all kinds of learning experiences (institutional, job training,
flight, correspondence, etc.)
2) Working with employers to develop and enroll veterans in job
training programs (Apprenticeships and OJT)
3) Assessing and approving tests for professional and
occupational licensing and certification
4) Advocate for veterans at state and local levels, and serve
as gatekeepers for the GI Bill
5) Provide insights to the DVA and Congress on changes
necessary to make the GI Bills more relevant and responsive
*6) Performing outreach activities to increase the utilization
of the GI Bills including; briefings during transition
assistance programs (TAP) and retirement seminars, and sending
out mailings to recently discharged veterans and Selected
Reserve personnel
*7) Provide advice and guidance to veterans, guard, reservists,
and other GI Bill benefit recipients, as well as educators,
trainers and others who counsel veterans
*8) Training VA School Certifying Officials at all educational
institutions and job training establishments
*9) Assist the Federal Government in eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse
* Missions expanded as a result of Post-9/11 GI Bill
Mission Expansion: The Post-9/11 GI Bill has dramatically changed
the work requirements for the SAAs, specifically the last four (4) of
the nine (9) missions listed above. What follows will be a
justification for the additional staffing, and other resources for SAAs
which are the direct result of the new GI Bill. Staffing and resources
are, in turn, dependent upon adequate funding.
Mission #6--Outreach functions: Because many aspects of precisely
how GI Bill tuition and fee portions of the educational benefits will
be distributed to schools and what benefit recipients will be receiving
will be entirely different as of 8/1/09, and because school officials
and individual benefit recipients are eager for information, SAAs are
being inundated with phone calls, requests for formal briefings,
requests for slides and written information.
Given the complexity of the new GI Bill, SAAs are not anticipating
any letup for the foreseeable future on these types of requests for
information. Over the next year, many in the veterans' education field
are anticipating continuing changes and further refinements to policies
and procedures.
The new GI Bill bumps up against many other preexisting benefits
such as State National Guard Tuition Assistance, Federal National Guard
Tuition Assistance, State Tuition Assistance Programs for Combat and/or
other types of Veterans, etc., and most of the effected Agencies and
Organizations are also clamoring for details and information regarding
the new GI Bill.
In short, the onslaught of information requests have exploded and
the expansion of that SAA missions must be considered when establishing
the proper staffing of the SAAs. This is going to require a significant
increase in the current funding levels.
Mission #7--Guidance to benefit recipients and others: This, while
similar at the moment to the outreach above, will change dramatically
after the new GI Bill goes into effect.
First, because the school officials tend to know SAA personnel,
they frequently call directly with in-depth questions and problems.
Both questions and problems are likely to swell soon after the
effective date of the Post-9/11 GI Bill thereby increasing phone and
email traffic, and school officials requesting SAA technical assist
visits.
Second, many students are referred to SAA personnel by VCOs and
other school officials. The need to respond to the immediate demands of
education benefit recipients with time sensitive concerns is a pressing
matter and requires careful and, at times, delicate treatment.
Third, when these time sensitive concerns and pressing matters,
i.e., congressional inquiries and other exacting interactions, are
rushed or can not be given timely consideration due to inadequate SAA
staffing, additional problems arise for all concerned. A fully funded
SAA staffing would alleviate this problem.
Finally, additional SAA funding will be needed to address the
increased dissemination of information and problem solving that will be
created by the Post-9/11 GI Bill and its Yellow Ribbon component. This
increased tasking will increase exponentially as the GI Bill goes
forward and that, in turn, will increase the SAA's operating costs.
Mission #8--VCO Training: As introduced above, the amount of
training now required by school officials (VCO or SCO) has increased in
the wake of the Post-
9/11 Bill. This is particularly true with respect to the reporting
requirements for housing and tuition and fee rates.
Chapter 33 imposes a series of brand new and complex tasks which
School Officials, of varying levels of expertise, will be required to
undertake. It is difficult to capture a true sense the scale and
enormity of the information which must be conveyed, and in many cases
then revisited again with various School Officials and others. School
officials, who up until now, have had little to do with either the VA
or the SAAs, are being brought into the mix as a result of the direct
tuition payment provisions of the new bill, and massive requests for
assistance from the SAAs are emerging and will continue to grow.
Mission #9--Prevention of Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Perhaps none of
the missions discussed so far will require more additional SAA manpower
to carry out properly the than prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fact is, changes in rate of pursuit, which under the Montgomery GI Bill
would have had negligible consequences, will now have an enormous
impact.
One must bear in mind that overpayments are typically caught only
by the combination of vigilant supervisory visits where extensive and
comprehensive record checks are conducted by the SAA personnel, and/or
by thorough compliance surveys by VA personnel. Only additional
manpower resources will make it possible to ensure that any changes in
rate of pursuit or residency are caught and reported.
The new provisions of the Yellow Ribbon program may generate
considerable overpayments. Supervisory visits will now have to ensure
that the school has followed all of the correct procedures with respect
to the special case of these Yellow Ribbon overpayments.
Summation: The SAAs have not had an increase in funding in the last
four (4) years. When Chapter 33 was announced, the VA was allowed to
conduct a significant hiring of over 500 new personnel in recognition
of the additional work burdens imposed by the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The SAAs, by contrast, have not been in a position to hire even
though the Post-9/11 workload has ballooned for these agencies as well.
The benefit stream flows through the SAAs as well as the VA, and
without a fully functioning SAA, veterans and other benefit recipients
will not receive their educational benefits in a smooth, orderly, and
timely fashion.
SAAs/States need funding stability in order to maximize their
contributions to the success of the GI Bills. A predictable stream of
funding allows States to plan and execute activities to meet the needs
of veterans and the requirements of the law. Many SAAs are comprised of
one full time professional staff person--some have only a part time
person.
Program approval and monitoring activities, especially those
associated with apprenticeship and other on-the-job training programs,
require expertise and timely action. A predictable stream of funding
also means providing some level of flexibility of SAAs to access
additional funds from those available nationally, should the need
arise. The lifting of personnel hiring freezes within a state or a
sharp increase in veteran participation in job training programs, for
example, place additional demands upon an SAA's budget. Many times
these shortfalls can be met if the opportunity to use remaining Federal
funds is available through the supplemental process.
Section 3674(a)(4) specifically provides the amount of the funds
that will be made available to states to carry out their
responsibilities. The fact that the amount is specifically stated in
law and is viewed as a non-discretionary expenditure highlights the
importance that the Congress has placed on state involvement in the
administration of the GI Bills and state's commitment to our Nation by
insuring that the GI Bills remain the premier educational assistance
programs in our country, bar none. Veterans deserve no less.
Section III. Answers to specific questions posed by the committee.
Q. How is funding allocated across the 50 states: How is funding
determined per state for each SAA agency?
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2008, the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs implemented a new funding formula for allocating
funding to each of the State Approving Agencies. This formula used
three factors, active facilities, a cost of living factor, and a 3-year
rolling average, to determine a State Approving Agency's allocation.
The VA defines an active facility as an approved institution of
higher learning, non-college degree program, apprenticeship, or on-the-
job training program, in which a veteran received GI Bill benefits for
training at a facility at any point during a defined period. This
period has generally encompassed a twelve-month period ranging from
April 1 to March 31 of the following year.
The VA used the Office of Personnel Management's locality payment
from the wage scales for Federal employees to provide a cost of living
factor in their funding allocation formula. The VA formula used the
headquarters of the State Approving Agency to determine each State
Approving Agency's locality payment.
To determine each State Approving Agency's allocation, the VA first
determines the number of total active facilities for each State
Approving Agency. In doing so, the VA counts both apprenticeship and
on-the-job training programs as only one-half (\1/2\) of an active
facility, while it counts institutions of higher learning and non-
college degree programs as one (1) active facility.
Once the VA computes the total count of facilities per State
Approving Agency, they then multiply this number by the locality factor
to determine an adjusted total active facility count.
The VA then adds up the adjusted active facility count for each
State Approving Agency to determine the national total of adjusted
active facilities, and then divides each State Approving Agency's
adjusted active facilities count by the national total of adjusted
active facilities count to determine each State Approving Agency's
percentage of the total appropriation.
For instance, if a State Approving Agency had 100 adjusted total
facilities and the national adjusted facility total was 10,000, this
State Approving Agency would receive 1 percent of the total
appropriation for State Approving Agencies.
The last step in the State Approving Agency funding allocation
formula is the application of a 3-year rolling average. In applying
this step, the VA was attempting to alleviate major variances in
funding from one fiscal year to another and to level funding over a 3-
year period.
Q. Provide a breakdown of how funding is spent.
The SAA funding is based on a cost reimbursement model. As outlined
in Article IX of the definitive State Approving Agency contract, funds
are provided for ``salary and fringe, travel, administrative allowance,
and outreach.''
SAA salaries tend to vary rather widely from state to state, due to
the fact that the 59 separate SAAs are found in a total of 22 types of
different agencies within the various states. Each SAA has its own
salary structure, and each is unique as a function of the prevailing
regional economic condition.
The fringe costs would again be unique by state, as the cost of
health care and the retirement arrangements vary widely.
Travel costs vary not only as a function of the prevalent economic
conditions in a given region, but also as a function of the size and
population density of the state as well as the number of offices the
SAA runs, and whether personal, state, or rental cars are used, etc.
The administrative allowance pays for items such as computers, fax
machines, copiers, shredders, and office furniture, rent, phones,
utility bills, office supplies and the like.
Outreach costs can cover printing, advertising, required travel,
postage, media costs, and all of the attended costs which surround
getting the information out regarding Chapter 33.
In short, SAA funding is converted directly into service to
veterans by having the staff necessary to conduct approval visits,
technical assistance, training, supervision, outreach, etc.
Q. What is the structure of the State staffing level:
Historically, SAA staffing funding formulas were negotiated by the
NASAA Contract Committee Chair and the Education Services Director as
prescribed in DVA M-22. During that period parties concerned developed
a staffing formula based on a ratio of active institutions to the
number of field professionals.
In FY08 DVA changed the funding formula by changing count ratio
from the prior IHL/NCD:APP/OJT ratio from 1:1 to 1:0.5. This
significantly changed each agency's percentage of the national
workload, and this, in turn, resulted in some states being underfunded
and some states being overfunded. This situation can be mitigated
through the ``supplemental funding process'' which redistributes de-
obligated funds from those states who could not expend their total
contract amount to those states needing to be made whole because of
underfunding.
Presently, SAA staffing level structure is based on its percentage
of a national workload average without regard to salary structure.
The structure of State Approving Agencies' staffing varies from
state to state. Although there are standard Federal qualifications for
an SAA professional positions, each state ultimately determines
professional qualifications and pay grades, e.g., New York State SAA
professionals must possess a graduate degree and have significantly
higher or vocational education work experience, whereas, other states
have different, and, in many cases, lesser qualifications.
Therefore, there is no one single staffing structure because each
state operates as an independent entity. The present funding formula
does not take this variable into consideration when allocating Federal
funds to the state. This contributes to some states being overfunded
and others underfunded.
Q. What type of outreach are the SAAs specifically doing for the Post-
9/11 GI Bill and other programs (i.e. radio advertisements,
handouts, etc)? Please provide a breakdown of outreach efforts.
State Approving Agencies have always conducted extensive outreach
programs designed to educate all concerned parties including veterans,
VSOs, college and university officials, employers, and the general
public, and presentations are routinely made to professional
associations, public and private fraternal organizations, as well as
TAP briefings concerning all the Chapters of the GI Bill are regularly
scheduled to all military installations.
SAAs use all types of outreach materials including: mailings to
veterans, posters/advertisements to key public and private
institutions, and monthly newsletters to National Guard, reservists,
and recently separated veterans. In addition, NASAA has developed films
and CDs to be used in public service announcements and to be presented
in public meetings, to veterans' service organizations, and workshops,
and advertisement is provided via billboards and posters while TV and
radio interviews have been conducted on both the local and national
levels.
But, the need to bring the schools up to speed on Chapter 33 has
vastly increased the amount of outreach being demanded of the SAAs.
Special Chapter 33 workshops are being set up all over the state by the
VA, National Guard, Air National Guard, the SAAs, as well as the public
and private IHLs, and IHL consortia. And, the SAAs are being
overwhelmed by the number of requests they are receiving for
information sessions regarding the new Bill.
Q. The purpose of the SAA is to approve programs of study, has the role
of the SAA grown beyond its original scope? If so how has the
role of the SAAs evolved? Please provide specific details and
examples.
The original purposes for the establishment of the State Approving
Agencies are as relevant today as they were at the close of WWII when
Congress requested the state's assistance in the administration of the
Servicemen's Readjustment of 1944, and those have always been to:
Approve programs of study thereby ensuring the credibility of the
learning experience in which veterans engage, assist the Federal
Government in waste, fraud and abuse, and assist veterans in making a
successful transition from military to civilian world. However, the
role of the SAAs has definitely grown beyond the original scope.
In the early years of this decade the SAAs picked up the additional
outreach mission, and this resulted in expansion of the apprenticeship
and OJT approvals which increased both GI Bill benefits and SAA
workload.
However, as discussed above, the most dramatic role expansion has
come about directly because of the new requirements which arise from
Chapter 33.
Outreach demands have quadrupled, direct guidance to various
parties through technical assistance, phone, e-mail, and visits have
been increasing at a staggering rate, the requirement to provide in-
depth training to veterans and school officials is at unprecedented
levels, and because of the amounts of money involved, the new
calculational requirements being levied on the Certifying Officials,
the complexity of the reporting, supervising, and auditing
requirements, the importance of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse will
reach new levels.
SAAs are part of a network and continuum that exists DVA/SAA/VCO/
Benefit Recipient. Now that the tasking for all parts of this network
has significantly increased, SAAs must be funded and staffed to the new
missions or the entire chain of benefits will suffer accordingly.
A specific example of what can arise without sufficient SAA
resources would be an IHL with a new program which does not make it
into WEAMS so that the student can receive his educational benefits
because the SAA did not have sufficient staff to schedule a timely
supervisory/reapproval visit.
Q. How has the new more expansive role impacted the SAAs ability to
provide the services originally intended and is the current
funding level sufficient.
The new more expansive role as outlined in the aforementioned
testimony has strained and in some cases exceeded the current resources
of the SAAs: First, funding has remained at the $19 million level for
four (4) years. During that period the cost of living has increased
approximately 15 percent. Second, over those 4 years the SAA workload
has increased significantly particularly since the enactment of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Therefore, realistically, the $19 million is an unworkable number,
and after a careful analysis it was determined that in order to
efficiently and effectively accomplish the SAAs mission, at a minimum
an additional $15 million would be need over the next three (3) years.
The additional funding should be phased in over a 3 year period.
This 3 year ramp-up, $5 million in 2010, $5 million in 2011, and $5
million in 2012 would give the SAAs time to systematically higher
additional staff and increase support activities, i.e., supervision,
outreach, travel, etc.
As mentioned earlier, when Chapter 33 was announced the VA was
allowed to hire over 500 new personnel in recognition of the additional
work burdens imposed by the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The SAAs, by contrast,
have not been in a position to hire, because of static funding, even
though the Post-9/11 workload has ballooned for the SAAs as well. The
benefit stream flows through the SAAs as well as the VA, and without a
fully functioning SAA, veterans and other benefit recipients will not
receive their educational benefits in a smooth, orderly, and timely
fashion.
Section IV. Conclusion and SAA Survey Data
Finally, as part of the effort to explain to the Congress the
importance that SAAs play in the delivery of educational benefits to
those entitled we are including some results which we obtained as part
of an on-going project to develop outcome measurements for State
Approving Agencies.
NASAA distributed a survey to school certifying officials to get
their views on SAAs and their work. Two thousand one hundred and sixty-
six school officials in 21 states responded. About two-thirds of the
respondents work at colleges or universities, and the rest work at non-
college degree schools or job training establishments.
Respondents represent states from all regions of the country, and
there is a balanced mix of small and large states. While the sample was
not designed as a statistically representative sample, it does appear
to represent a good cross-section of certifying officials around the
country.
Some 60 percent of the respondents have worked with veterans'
education programs for more than four (4) years, indicating relatively
broad experience in the sample group. Most respondents spend less than
half of their work time dealing with veterans' education.
Acknowledging that the SAAs' primary responsibility is the review
and approval of education and training programs, the survey sought
information about other, ``value added,'' services that SAAs provide to
schools and training facilities. Several significant findings emerged,
all centered around the issue of how certifying officials get
information, training, and assistance to do their jobs.
We asked certifying officials to indicate their primary source of
training on how to do their jobs, excluding specific training on VA's
online certification system, VA ONCE. Forty-four percent of those
responding said their primary source is their State Approving Agency
(SAA). Twenty-eight percent said VA was their primary source. The
remainder said that professional organizations and associations served
as their primary source.
When asked where they would turn first for answers to general
questions about VA education programs, 27 percent said they would
contact their State Approving Agency. Not surprisingly, 70 percent said
they would contact VA first. Regardless of the source of help, 97
percent of respondents said they are satisfied with the answers they
receive.
In a more specific question, respondents were asked to indicate
their first source of help for several different issues. Not
unexpectedly, 82 percent turn first to SAAs for help with program
approval issues, and 74 percent turn first to VA for status of payment
inquiries. However, for ``support services,'' 44 percent turn first to
the SAA and 39 percent turn to VA.
Eighty-five percent of respondents agreed that their SAA ``explains
everything to my satisfaction, especially when a problem is
discovered.'' Seventy-eight percent agree that SAA supervisory visits
``are informative and helpful.'' More than 86 percent agree that SAAs
are ``knowledgeable,'' ``dependable and helpful,'' and ``respond . . .
in a timely manner.''
An overwhelming 91 percent said that they feel their State
Approving Agency (SAA) is ``a vital support asset'' to them in doing
their jobs as certifying officials.
Based upon these observations, we conclude that State Approving
Agencies provide--and have for years provided--significant service
beyond simply approving programs. It is apparent from these data that
many certifying officials see their State Approving Agency as a
necessary partner in managing and implementing the various GI Bill and
VA education programs. Most do not do this work full-time and they need
to have a responsive source for answers and advice. For many, that
source is the State Approving Agency.
SAAs provide significant value-added service to VA through their
interactions with certifying officials. Timely supervisory visits and
the information provided during them can reduce the number of questions
directed to VA staff, reducing the amount of time they must spend
developing replies. School officials get quicker responses to their
questions, resulting in better service to veterans.
SAAs' involvement with certifying officials also provides
invaluable service to the citizens by helping to address issues of
fraud, waste, and abuse. Obviously, supervisory visits can uncover
instances of overpayments to be addressed by VA, but the SAA-Certifying
Official interaction generally serves to prevent such instances.
The training and consultation provided by SAAs ensures a better-
trained, more confident certifying official, less likely to make
mistakes that could lead to benefit overpayments. SAAs' responsiveness
to their schools and training facilities ensures timely and supportive
help that enables certifying officials to do a better job.
Finally, ``the proof is in the pudding'': certifying officials
agree that what their SAAs do is critical to their own success at their
schools and facilities. They turn often to SAAs for help when they need
it and they agree that they get good response.
Comments from 624 respondents include statements like these:
They are a great wealth of knowledge and are my first line of
contact in the chain.
I have had nothing but the most courteous and prompt
assistance with any question or problem that I may have had. I do feel
that the SAA is essential in making my job the most efficient that it
can be.
SAA is vital to us. They are always present at our state
conference to help the new people to VA on handling catalog/program
approvals. Always willing to answer questions and provide assistance.
I have always had great service! I wish the _______
Regional Office did as good a job at explaining things to veterans when
they call.
They are so much more accessible than VA. I always
receive fast, accurate information from the ____ SAA. They always go
above and beyond to assist us certifying officials. They make my job
easier.
I have found dealing with the VA Educational Liaison
Representative to be very unhelpful. The SAA liaisons have been very
helpful.
The SAA is my first contact with any questions that I
have. If they cannot answer the question (which is rare) then they
always point me in the right direction. I manage a very small number of
veterans, so I do not necessarily become proficient in all aspects of
the approval process. This means that I rely heavily upon the SAA and
they have always provided very good assistance.
In closing, Mrs. Chairwoman, I want to sincerely thank you and this
subcommittee for the opportunity you have provided NASAA today to
explain why it is so necessary that the SAAs be given the resources to
carry out the expanded and critically important missions that arise
from the implementation of new Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson,
Director, Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
education benefit programs and the role of the State Approving Agencies
(SAAs). My testimony will highlight the role of SAAs in serving the
needs of VA and our Nation's Veterans. I will specifically address
program services, staffing, oversight, SAA outreach activities, and
funding provided by the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act
of 2008.
Role of the SAAs
VA and the SAAs work together to ensure the successful readjustment
of Veterans to civilian life through educational opportunities. VA
administers educational assistance to eligible Veterans and dependents,
while the SAAs ensure the quality of the educational and vocational
programs pursued and monitor the institutions providing education and
training to veterans.
Title 38 United States Code establishes the parameters for the
relationship between VA and the SAAs. Section 3671 requests that each
state create or designate a state department or agency as the ``State
Approving Agency.'' SAAs are charged with approving courses in
accordance with the provisions of chapters 34, 35 and 36 of title 38,
including apprenticeship programs. They also conduct outreach programs
and provide outreach services to eligible persons and Veterans about
education and training benefits available. Under contracts with VA,
SAAs ensure that education and training programs meet federal VA
standards through a variety of approval activities, such as evaluating
course quality, assessing school financial stability, and monitoring
student progress. VA currently has contracts with 57 SAAs.
The FY 2009 SAA contracts include efforts to support the Post-9/11
GI Bill, which is effective August 1, 2009. While the role of the SAAs
generally remains the same, the contract requires the SAAs to perform
duties that support all other VA education programs in addition to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The SAAs have expanded outreach to ensure awareness of the Post-9/
11 GI Bill, and VA recently used the SAAs to verify their states'
highest in-state public school tuition and fee rates for the 2008/2009
and 2009/2010 academic years to support the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
GAO Report
In response to a GAO report, ``VA Student Financial Aid: Management
Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approving Education and Training
Programs and to Assess State Approving Agencies'' (GAO-07-384, March
2007), VA implemented a tracking and reporting system and established
outcome-oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of
the SAAs. VA receives quarterly reports, supervisory visit reports, and
outreach reports from each SAA. VA uses these reports to monitor SAA
performance. SAAs also submit quarterly reports on the number of
approvals and supervisory visits completed, technical assistance
provided, outreach conducted, and staff training completed during the
quarter.
VA developed performance measures to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the SAAs. The performance measures were implemented on
November 1, 2008, and provided to the SAAs with their fiscal year (FY)
2009 contracts. The performance measures include performance targets
and methods for SAA approval activities and supervisory visits. One
measure requires the SAAs to visit 80 percent of their assigned active
educational institutions and training establishments, while other
measures require the SAAs complete 90% of the program-approval packages
within 30 days of receipt of the completed application package; obtain
a Joint Peer Review Group rating of satisfactory; and respond to 95% of
the program-approval inquiries within 14 days.
Staffing and Funding for SAAs
The current SAA staffing levels are adequate based on the number of
active facilities in each state. These staffing levels provide for the
successful completion of SAA contract responsibilities. VA's focus is
on outcomes. Therefore, VA primarily concentrates on whether or not
contractual obligations are met and less on the specific staffing
levels utilized to meet the requirements.
The present SAA funding allocation model has been used since FY
2007 and was developed with input from the SAAs. The allocation is
based on active institutions within each state. Active institutions
include both institutions of higher learning (IHLs) and non-IHLs such
as apprenticeship and on-the-job training (OJT) programs. All funds
provided by statute are allocated at the beginning of the year. Each
SAA receives a proposed contract toward the beginning of each year
specifying the dollar amount of the contract. The SAA then provides a
business plan that delineates the proposed actions and performance
levels it will accomplish for the specified contract amount. If the
business plan is accepted by VA, VA and the SAA enter into a binding
contractual obligation to provide all services in the SAA's business
plan for the dollar amount offered.
The SAA's reimbursement contracts require that SAAs provide salary,
travel, administrative expenses, outreach activities, and subcontract
(if needed) dollars annually. The current $19 million funding level
provided by the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act for 2008
is sufficient to meet SAA contracted requirements. Normally, all
statutory funds available for SAAs are not expended. Often, SAAs will
return funds to VA based on position vacancies, reduced travel
expenses, or other unanticipated reductions in funding needs.
Traditionally, funds remaining at the end of each FY are redistributed
to SAAs to support efforts conducted beyond the minimal requirements of
the contract. These supplemental awards are approved on a case-by-case
basis.
SAA Outreach
VA continues to monitor the outreach activities of the SAAs. The FY
2009 SAA contracts were revised to require the SAAs to provide outreach
visit reports to VA. In addition, VA requested SAAs complete an
outreach questionnaire in April 2009 on specific efforts related to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. The questionnaire responses and the outreach visit
reports indicate SAAs are performing specific outreach for the Post-9/
11 GI Bill. Some examples are: a 6-week radio campaign that highlighted
the Post-9/11 GI Bill; letters regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill provided
at Transition Assistance Program briefings; newsletters; Governor's
letters to recently discharged veterans; articles in local
publications; presentations on the Post-9/11 GI Bill at school
conferences, job fairs and veterans and military resource fairs; and
presentations to military and veterans groups.
SAA Oversight
VA has enjoyed a longstanding positive relationship with the SAAs.
As with any relationship, however, we are continually engaged with the
SAAs to identify areas for improvement. For example, in FY 2008 five
SAAs received a minimally satisfactory rating or an unsatisfactory
rating from the Joint Peer Review Group (JPRG). The JPRG evaluates and
verifies the activities of the SAAs and makes rating recommendations.
Some of the ratings were based on problems in meeting contractual
obligations, such as approval return rates or failures to timely
process approvals. These instances occur rarely. Overall, VA is pleased
with the performance of the SAAs.
Mission and Recommendations
The SAAs' mission is clearly defined in statute. The SAAs have
contributed to the administration of education programs relatively free
of waste, fraud, and abuse. We and the SAAs are proud of that success.
As VA education programs and the education community change, we look
forward to meeting the future challenges.
The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389,
amended 38 U.S.C. 3673 to provide that the Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to ensure the coordination of approval activities
performed by SAAs under this chapter and chapters 34 and 35 of this
title and approval activities performed by the Department of Labor, the
Department of Education, and other entities in order to reduce overlap
and improve efficiency in the performance of such activities. In its
July 2009 report to Congress, ``Coordination of Approval Activities in
the Administration of Education Benefits.'' VA recommended legislation
that would give the Secretary authority to act on any findings of
duplicative efforts. Section 3672 provides that a veteran or eligible
person may not receive educational assistance unless the program is
approved by the SAA as provided for under the provisions of chapter 36
of title 38. In a limited number of situations, the Secretary rather
than the SAA has jurisdiction of approval of courses and programs. In
addition, other provisions within chapter 36 provide the criteria the
SAA must apply when determining whether or not a course or program may
be approved under chapter 36. For example, section 3675 provides
criteria for accredited course approval. By statute, the SAA must
review accredited programs and determine if they meet the approval
criteria in section 3675. We believe, for example, expanding the
Secretary's authority to accept registered apprenticeship programs or
flight approvals from the Department of Labor or the Federal Aviation
Administration would enable more effective use of SAA resources. Such
legislation would allow VA to accept some accredited programs without a
separate evaluation by the SAA.
VA also suggests in the report that chapter 36 be amended to give
VA discretion to accept certain courses or programs of education, such
as accredited programs offered by public institutions, without specific
SAA approval unless VA determines it is necessary to seek such
approval. Such amendments, if enacted, could streamline the statutory
responsibilities of the SAAs and allow for more effective utilization
of existing resources.
VA further recommended that chapter 36 be amended to authorize the
Secretary to utilize the SAAs for compliance and oversight activities
as the Secretary deems appropriate. This would allow VA to utilize SAAs
to perform some of the compliance and review visits that VA currently
conducts. VA may wish to expand compliance reviews to cover more
records and review more financial information, especially tuition and
fee charges and administration of the Yellow Ribbon program.
We believe the proposed amendments would be cost neutral since the
funding currently utilized to approve programs would be utilized to
enhance outreach, compliance, and oversight activities.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Statement of Kathryn M. Snead, Ed.D.,
President, Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, Washington, DC
Thank you for the invitation to testify on the Evolution of State
Approving Agencies and their link to the Servicemembers Opportunity
Colleges Consortium of which I am its president. (See my curriculum
vitae attached.)
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) functions to expand and
improve voluntary postsecondary education opportunities for
servicemembers worldwide. SOC was created in 1972 to provide a vehicle
to help coordinate voluntary postsecondary educational opportunities
for servicemembers, many of whom frequently move from place to place
and experience difficulty in completing college degrees. SOC is funded
by the Department of Defense (DoD) through a contract with the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). It is
cosponsored by AASCU and the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC), in cooperation with 13 other American higher education
associations, all the United States Military Services, the National
Guard, and the Coast Guard.
The SOC Consortium, comprised of more than 1800 college and
university members, enrolls hundreds of thousands of servicemembers,
their family members, and veterans annually in associate-, bachelor-,
and graduate-level degree programs on school campuses, military
installations, and armories within the United States and overseas, and
through distance learning and learning assessment. SOC Consortium
institutions have pledged to support the higher education needs of the
military servicemember. Additional information regarding SOC College
Consortium Membership and SOC programs and services can be found on the
SOC Web site: http://www.soc.aascu.org/.
One of the initial conditions for SOC Consortium Membership is that
institutions must be approved for veterans' education benefits by the
appropriate State Approving Agency. Since our organization's inception
in 1972, we have trusted and relied upon the work of the State
Approving Agencies to validate the credibility and integrity of the
educational experiences within each state. We set great stock in their
professionalism and diligence to make quality determinations about
educational programs of study. In essence, membership within our
consortium depends upon the institutional assessment of learning
experiences conducted by the State Approving Agencies. The expanded
roles placed on the State Approving Agencies could impact the execution
of existing services and responsibilities if sufficient funding and
staff resources do not keep pace with their workload and commitments.
With the August 1, 2009 rollout of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it is
highly anticipated that colleges and universities will experience an
increase in applications. The Department of Veterans Affairs predicts
that as many as 100-125,000 additional veterans may use their education
benefits over the next 2- to 3-year period. It remains uncertain how
many servicemembers still on active duty will transfer their education
benefits to spouses and dependent children in the coming years. While
we may not have exact figures as to numbers of veterans and
servicemembers who will use their education benefits, the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill will significantly expand the
roles of State Approving Agencies (SAAs). Over the course of the
current fiscal year and certainly in the next one, the State Approving
Agency's role will definitely evolve and expand in the following three
areas:
1. SAAs are being held responsible for collecting, verifying, and
reporting in-state tuition and fees information upon which the payment
structure of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill is based. This is foundational to the implementation of
the new GI Bill as currently written.
2. SAAs provide outreach functions about precisely how the GI Bill
tuition and fee portions of the education benefits are distributed to
schools and what benefit recipients can expect to receive. Both school
officials and benefit recipients are eager for accurate and timely
information. SAAs are inundated with requests, albeit by telephone,
fax, and e-mail, for formal briefings, slides, written information,
whatever can be made available. Due to established institutional
relationships within the state, SAAs are expected to provide timely
outreach and training to institutional certifying officials. SOC has a
concern of whether this evolving outreach and training function can be
accomplished given limited resources now being made available to
support SAAs.
3. SAAs have an important mission to help prevent waste, fraud,
and abuse. The payment provisions and the complexity of the Post-9/11
GI Bill lend themselves to enormous problems in this area. The new
provisions of the Yellow Ribbon program alone may well generate
considerable overpayments. SAA personnel often catch, by a combination
of vigilant supervisory visits and extensive and comprehensive record
checks, overpayments. Only through an increase of well-trained manpower
resources can these functions be managed effectively.
In recent months we have experienced a significant increase in
complaints/concerns about inappropriate promotions, advertisements, and
enrollment inducements from institutions. These advertisements and
enrollment incentives are targeting the ``new'' veteran market. It
appears that SOC's Standards of Good Practice don't sufficiently
address enrollment incentives or inducements that might unduly sway
servicemembers/veterans in their college decisionmaking process. Though
I have convened a Task Force consisting of representatives from the
accreditation community, the higher education associations, and the
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to help establish a common
baseline for marketing higher education to servicemembers and veterans,
the potential for fraud and abuse related to the payment of veteran
educational benefits requires collaborative efforts across governmental
agencies and the higher education community to minimize or deter
fraudulent claims. In their outreach role, SAAs can assist and
reinforce standards of good practice with school officials to ensure
good practice in their institutional marketing and advertising. SAAs
are well positioned within their states to observe, identify, and
eliminate fraudulent/abusive practices. But they must be resourced
appropriately in order to perform their missions.
In this testimony I elect to emphasize one final specific aspect of
the informational challenge that both military students and veterans
face when accessing postsecondary education: access to accurate AND
appropriate college information. Many of our servicemembers and
veterans are first generation college applicants who lack general
knowledge about the college search, selection, and admission process.
They rely heavily upon the guidance and assistance of college
admissions personnel as their primary source of reliable information.
The outreach roles that SAAs have undertaken are paramount for insuring
that college personnel have accurate knowledge and training to help
veterans and their families access the correct information sources,
procedures, and necessary support for enrolling in postsecondary
education. They have established excellent rapport with institutions of
higher learning in their states and have become a trusted source of
accurate information for the higher education community. SAAs' pivotal
informational role is extremely important so that veterans are
appropriately advised and enrolled by college personnel.
We welcome partnership opportunities to limit and prevent abusive
practices. SAAs are well positioned within their states to observe,
identify, and eliminate fraudulent/abusive practices. But they must be
resourced appropriately in order to perform their missions.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
The Honorable Timothy H. Bishop
U.S. House of Representatives
306 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Bishop:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Follow-up Questions from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on The Evolution of State Approving Agencies
July 16, 2009
Submitted for the Record
1. As an administrator at the Southampton College in Southampton,
New York, were there any problems or concerns that you felt needed to
be improved upon concerning the SAA's?
a. If so what would you change or improve?
Answer: As the Provost of Southampton College, I do not recall
receiving any complaints concerning the approvals for the GI Bill or
the veterans' certifications.
2. In your testimony you said that you were visited once a year by
an SAA representative. Was that enough or do you think your school
would have benefited from more visits?
Answer: At the time, once a year appeared to be enough. However
with the onset of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, more visits may be necessary.
3. What was the number one concern that student veterans had at
Southampton College?
a. Were the SAA's able to resolve the problem?
Answer: The veterans' worst problem would have been to sign up for
a program that was not approved and have the claim denied for this
reason. One purpose of the annual visits was to update the approvals
and, for the most part, this problem was avoided. When problems did
occur, however, the SAA always acted very quickly to get the program
approved and the vet paid.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Mark Walker
Deputy Director, National Economic Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Walker:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
American Legion
Washington, DC.
August 31, 2009
Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chair
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the
Subcommittee hearing on The Evolution of State Approving Agencies on
July 16, 2009. I respectfully submit the following in response to your
additional questions:
1. Are there any portions of the SAAs current missions that are better
suited for the VA?
Currently, VA is overwhelmed with the current workload. They have
neither the experienced personnel nor the time or travel budget to
assume SAA responsibilities. At this point in time, we do not believe
any SAA functions should be transferred to the VA as the SAA's are the
liaison to the education/training community, military organizations,
veteran service organizations (VSOs) and veterans at the State and
local level.
2. If the SAAs were abolished today what would be the result?
If the SAA were abolished the SAA missions would be assumed by the
VA; consequently, service to America's veterans would suffer as would
the quality of education received by GI Bill recipients. The VA is
becoming a regional processing center designed to pay veterans benefits
with a limited capability to interact with the veteran education
community at the State and local level. It is the SAA that meets and
deals with GI Bill constituencies: universities/college official,
veteran certifying officials, VSO, non-degree school owners, employers,
and most importantly veterans. As previously mentioned, VA is stretched
to the limit and overwhelmed now with education benefits payment
processing and does not have the necessary resources, i.e., experienced
personnel and travel budget to assume the additional taskings that
would be required. SAA personnel are already qualified, State employees
and cost less than Federal employees as their retirement is borne by
the respective States and not by the Federal taxpayer. Also, the reason
SAA's were created stems from the fact education remains a
constitutionally mandated State not a Federal, responsibility. The
American Legion supports SAAs and recommends $24 million for their FY
2011 budget so they can handle their expanded missions in light of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Thank you for your continued commitment to America's veterans and
their families.
Sincerely,
Mark Walker, Deputy Director
National Economic Commission
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Raymond C. Kelley
National Legislative Director
AMVETS
4647 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
Dear Mr. Kelley:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
AMVETS' Response to the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity Hearing Held on July 16, 2009,
``The Evolution of State Approving Agencies''
1. In your testimony, you state AMVETS is concerned that the SAAs
spend 36 percent of their time approving and reviewing programs. In
your opinion how much time should the SAAs spend approving and
reviewing programs?
It is hard to determine the amount of time that should be spent
approving and reviewing programs. Without a breakdown of which programs
are co-approved by a regional or national accreditation or the
Department of Education, determining time allocation is impossible. A
metric must be developed to identify overlap of approving practices.
Until this is done, there will be no way to accurately allocate time.
It is AMVETS' belief that with so many other accrediting organizations
fulfilling similar roles, that approving and monitoring programs should
consume the least amount of time while focusing more time and resources
on ensuring that institutions understand their role in ensuring student
veteran success.
Regional accreditation standards are much more in depth than SAA's.
Depending on the organization, regional accreditations consist of nine
to 14 subject areas with multiple subcategories. In AMVETS research, it
appears that all the criteria that SAA approved programs must achieve
are meet by these regional accrediting organizations. The Council for
Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has approved seven regional, two
national, four faith-based, and 46 programmatic accrediting
organizations. It appears that each of these organizations assess the
five criteria the SAA uses to approve a program. They are: (1)
recordkeeping of student progress; (2) recordkeeping of student's
previous education; (3) quality, content and length of courses; (4)
qualifications of administrators and instructors; and (5) equipment,
space, and instructional materials. AMVETS recommends that based on the
breath and depth in which these organizations accredit institutions, a
study should be conducted to see which of these organizations meet the
SAA criteria and when they do SAA should accept the accrediting and
invest SAA accrediting and review time to those programs not covered by
other approving organizations.
a. What else should they be doing with their time?
The complaints AMVETS receives from student veterans are not that
the program they what to enroll is not accredited, or that they thought
the program was accredited, but rather that the institution does not
understand the claims process and that the individual claim has been
mishandled by the certifying official and subsequently the veterans'
benefit is late and all too often the veteran has been disenrolled for
not paying their tuition. Also, there are continuous questions
specifically related to educational benefits. These are two roles that
fall under the purview of SAA. AMVETS believes that the majority of
SAA's time should be spent ensuring institutions know their
responsibilities in assisting veterans and reaching out to veterans in
the local communities so there is a broader understanding of the
veterans educational benefits.
2. In your testimony, you said that the VA developed the Joint
Peer Review Group (JPRG). Why does AMVETS fell that the JPRG does not
provide accountability of the SAA resources?
Public Law 100-323 requires annual JPRG to meet and evaluate the
performance of the individual SAAs. This oversight measure was enacted
to ensure veterans are receiving the highest quality education our
country has to offer. VA's SAAs were implemented to carry out this
oversight and reportedly add value to VA's approval process through
focusing on student services for veterans, ensuring the integrity of VA
benefits, providing more frequent on-site monitoring of education and
training programs that are provided by other agencies, and assessing
and approving a small number of programs that are not reviewed by other
agencies.
Unfortunately, VA has no way of actually verifying and tracking the
actions routinely preformed by the SAAs and JPRG has not implemented
any type of outside audit of performance. This concern has been
presented to Congress numerous times and was even the subject matter of
a 2007 OIG report. The first reason AMVETS believes that the JPRG are
not accurate in measuring real performance measures due to the fact
that most are self evaluations. AMVETS finds it even more concerning
that not all SAAs even provide JPRG with their requested self
evaluations. This lack of oversight by JPRG and VA's tolerance of such
behaviors cannot and will not lead to a successful and effectively run
program.
Secondly, neither JPRG nor VA measures the various outputs
resulting from SAA activities such as the number of supervisory visits
conducted; this lack of outcome performance measures makes it difficult
to assess the significance of such activities and the overall
effectiveness of SAA personnel. AMVETS recommends the development and
immediate implementation of uniformed outcome measures to be used, so
that JPRG and VA can have a standard system in which they can fully
evaluate SAA performances. This is vital to protecting the integrity of
the overall program and ensuring the contractual agreement between VA
and the various SAAs' is upheld, and that all SAA personnel are
continually updated and trained to current protocol.
How can we know how effectively the JPRG is at evaluating and
reviewing SAAs when there is no data provided or standardized measures
to compare it to? JPRG is suppose to be ensuring that SAA is providing
local resources to investigate alleged violations of VA education
regulations, community outreach, as well as representing VA in many
program oversight functions. To ensure all proper activities are taking
place AMVETS recommends annual program overview audits of random SAAs
already evaluated by JPRG to have reliable data to compare and to
ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and the services
promised to our veterans are being delivered.
It is noted that neither SAA nor JPRG personnel are VA employees,
but rather contractors hired by. As with any Federal contract
transparency an evaluation process will yield clearer standards, better
performance and a significant savings in funds for VA. Field auditors
must know that management and central office reviewers have full
visibility and access to their data and results. This should also be
true for central office personnel. These practices of contract
management help implement a procurement program designed around
successful results and accountability. SAA has been awarded a contract
of managing and improving the educational futures of our veterans'
community and Congress must hold all parties involved accountable.
AMVETS was pleased to see that VA had begun providing performance
measures for SAA; however, each of the measures they suggested in
testimony only evaluated efficiency, not effectiveness. AMVETS suggests
that performance measures be designed to evaluate both efficiency and
effectiveness.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Patrick Campbell
Chief Legislative Counsel
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
308 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
``The Evolution of State Approving Agencies''
Follow Up Questions, Patrick Campbell, IAVA Chief Legislative Counsel
1. Do you believe that visiting schools once every 1-3 years is
sufficient to monitor the school program?
After attending the annual Western Association of Veterans
Education Specialists (WAVES) convention in Oklahoma last month, the
true oversight role that State Approving Agencies play during the
certification process crystallized in my head. IAVA believes that
annual visits by the State Approving Agencies play a critical role in
preventing numerous enrollment certification errors. This saves the VA
more than the cost of the State Approving Agencies are currently
allocated each year.
In addition to approving each campus as a VA approved education
program, State Approving Agencies audit the GI Bill records of that
campus. The State Approving Agency compares the enrollment
certifications from that school to the information the school provides
to the State Approving Agency for GI Bill accreditation. If the State
Approving Agency finds any errors they work with the school certifying
official to reconcile the books and investigate if the error was an
isolated incident or systemic. This annual auditing process gives the
certifying officials regular critical feedback which prevents filing
errors in the future. If the school certifying official fails to
reconcile the books or comply with the audit the school risks losing
their VA approval. This is a powerful incentive to comply.
IAVA believes that State Approving Agencies should be conducting
annual review of all VA approved programs.
2. Can SAAs spend their time better focusing more on trade
schools, 2 year colleges and other small programs?
IAVA believes strongly that by simply focusing State Approving
Agencies on a particular type of educational program, such as trade
schools, the VA would lose crucial annual audits of GI Bill
certifications. The generally high turnover of school certifying
officials would result in schools receiving only limited feedback from
the VA without the State Approving Agencies annual auditing process.
3. How can we know the true value of the SAAs without an
accounting of time, resources, and outcome measures to properly gauge
the effectiveness of the SAAs?
The true value of State Approving Agencies is difficult to quantify
without clear reporting of performance and outcome measures. IAVA
believes that in order to strengthen the quality of State Approving
Agencies auditing and approval procedures, clear performance measures
should be outlined and assessments should be made public.
4. Do you think that the outreach and GI Bill information session
provided by the SAAs to colleges and universities are duplicative work
that the VA and other agencies already provide?
Outreach to veterans and school officials about the new GI Bill
requires an ``all hands on deck'' approach. Even with the work of the
VA, State Approving Agencies, Members of Congress, and the VSO's, many
veterans still do not understand how the new Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
work.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Justin Brown
Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Brown:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
JUSTIN BROWN, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY
CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
1. In your testimony you list 15 missions for the SAAs. In your
opinion are any of those better suited for Federal agencies?
The responsibilities listed reflect the roles of SAA's today.
Mission statement 7 under NASAA's list, in our testimony, suggests that
NASAA are providing direct GI Bill information to veterans. The VFW
believes that the most likely conduit for this information should be to
either the school of the veteran's attendance or the VA. However, SAA's
should be providing similar information to institutions that have
questions about the benefit and its implementation.
2. In your testimony you state that overpayments and underpayments
will be the most manpower intensive mission. How is this possible if
the VA has not made a single payment nor do we know how accurate the VA
payments will be in the future?
Our testimony states ``NASAA has singled this issue out as perhaps
its most manpower intensive mission in consideration of the changes due
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.'' If a student changes, adds, or drops
classes they are potentially changing their rate of pursuit, which
could lead to resource intensive over and under payments.
3. Should the mission of the SAAs be curtailed to fit the $19
million?
SAA's are currently operating at the funding level of $19 million.
The VFW maintains SAA's are underfunded in consideration of their
mandated mission. The large increase in the number of veterans
attending college calls for additional resources for SAA's to implement
the new GI Bill at the local level. The complicated bill specifically
demands a great deal of informational resources for schools and
institutions, which is a mission that SAA's have continued to provide.
Also, due to the sheer size of the new GI Bill more educational
programs are going to apply for eligibility, which will further strain
available resources.
4. If the funding for the SAAs was increased to $24 million, what
more would the SAAs be doing that is not being done now?
Amply providing the services they have been mandated to do. The VFW
maintains SAA's are underfunded in consideration of their mandated
mission. As stated in our testimony, SAAs workload is already
dramatically increasing. Without a similar increase in resources,
certain responsibilities will be neglected thereby decreasing the
programs overall quality for veterans and reducing the insurance of a
quality investment for our Federal Government. For the GI Bill to
remain the first-rate program it is today, SAAs must have the necessary
funding to maintain their critical mission.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Charles Rowe
President
National Association of State Approving Agencies
Eggert Crossing Roads
P.O. Box 340
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Mr. Rowe:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
National Association of State Approving Agencies, Inc.
Harrisburg, PA
August 28, 2009
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
United States House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Chairwoman:
The members of the National Association of State Approving Agencies
(NASAA) thank you and the Committee Members for the opportunity to
provide additional information on the role and responsibilities of
State Approving Agencies (SAAs). We sincerely appreciate your time and
consideration. During our recent Annual Training and Business
Conference, I was elected President. I have been active in the
association for over 22 years and was the Vice-President for the
previous 2 years.
As you are aware, the role and history of the SAAs dates back to
services provided to World War II veterans. Since the first GI Bill,
SAAs have worked with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to
ensure effective implementation of the various GI Bills. The location,
size, and exact mission of each State Approving Agency (SAA) have
varied depending upon the needs of a particular state.
In short, SAAs are the ``face of the GI Bill at the State level.''
We do work closely with DVA staff (both those stationed in State and at
the Regional Processing Offices). An important fact to remember is that
there are at least 14 States that do not have any educational DVA staff
in the State. We feel that each SAA works with the DVA staff (either in
State or out of State) to accomplish the overall mission of serving
veterans/reservists/dependents and Certifying Officials.
Enclosed are the responses for the record to the 13 questions. In
gathering the necessary information to respond, a survey was sent to
all SAAs. We also obtained data from DVA Central Office concerning
contract related items. We have included detailed information that
hopefully will provide the necessary clarification. If there are
additional questions or other information needed, please feel free to
contact me. In addition, we would be available for another hearing.
We sincerely hope that this information provides sufficient
documentation to warrant our increase in funding. Also, enclosed is an
example of the type of outreach SAAs do. NASAA produced the enclosed
video concerning the Post-9/11 GI Bill. You will see that we worked
with DVA staff. We will distribute this video to Members of Congress,
Governors, the various service organizations, Department of Defense
staff, DVA staff, and other interested individuals.
We firmly believe that the GI Bill should be the premier education
and training program in this country. By everyone working together, we
can deliver the benefits that have been earned by our veterans. They
deserve nothing less.
Sincerely yours,
William D. Stephens
President
Enclosures 2
__________
1. Under Mission number 7 you are seeking additional funding, among
other reasons, to hire additional staff. How many additional
full-time employees do you require?
Based upon the survey response that the National Association of
State Approving Agencies (NASAA) conducted with all State Approving
Agencies (SAAs), there would be an increase of 80 full-time staff
equivalent. The potential for hiring additional staff by individual
SAAs is influenced by several factors. The primary factor is funding
under the reimbursement contract that is administered by Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA). Another factor is the internal State hiring
practices and in some States there is a current freeze on hiring new
staff. It is important to note that due to the way a State Approving
Agency (SAA) functions within some States, not all new hires would be
full-time staff.
Additional points to consider in the area of staff funding include
the following.
a. Some SAAs do not have adequate funding to provide for current
staff to complete terms of the contract. These SAAs utilize supplements
at the end of the contract year for the necessary additional funding.
b. With a cap on funding at $19 million, there is no expansion in
funding to allow for natural and required cost increases for the
current staff levels (e.g. State union wage progression requirements).
c. Agencies have not been funded for the additional work we are
providing under the massive expansion to the GI Bill.
The above items will obviously impact SAAs ability to meet the
terms of the requirements of law and Congressional intent. Our position
is that the workload has increased proportionately for both DVA and the
SAAs. Before the new GI Bill, the DVA had approximately 800 employees
in the education service and hired about 500 new employees in light of
its demands. This represents an increase of roughly 60 percent.
We have asked for an increase in funding from $19 million to,
eventually, $34 million spaced out over a 3 year period of time.
2. If the funding were to remain constant how should we curtail the
SAAs role?
NASAA believes that SAAs provide a unique service to the DVA and
those eligible for GI Bill benefits. Therefore, curtailment of any
function could result in negative consequences. The totality of
services provided is not duplicated by other governmental agencies.
SAAs alone are responsible for ensuring compliance with Congressional
and DVA requirements for use of GI Bill benefits at the State level.
Within the State/VA contract, there are six basic functions (program
approval, program supervision, technical assistance, liaison, outreach,
and contract management). The following provides specific information
concerning two of the functions.
Approval of Programs:
Approval of programs at institutions/establishments and
licensure/certification examinations is the heart and soul of
SAAs. This can be divided into categories based upon the type
of institution/ establishment. They are: Institutions of Higher
Learning (IHL), Non-College Degree Institutions (NCD),
Apprenticeships (APP), On-the-Job Training (OJT), and
Licensure/Certification (L & C). In considering modifying the
approval requirement for SAAs, it has been suggested to
eliminate the approval requirement for institutions that are
accredited by certain accrediting agencies. Several points are
important to consider. First, the role of accrediting agencies
does not include a detailed review of individual programs. It
definitely does not include approval of individual programs to
ensure both Federal and State requirements are met. This is
especially true for NCD programs at IHLs. In addition,
accrediting agencies only conduct reviews on a periodic cycle
(up to 10 years for some agencies). Second, while the amount of
time each SAA spends on approving programs at accredited IHLs
varies, generally speaking this is a rather limited function in
time. Once a program is approved, the SAA ``builds'' upon that
approval when they do the annual re-approval. Staff does review
all new information to ensure that all approval requirements
are met. Staff does spend time reviewing all policies and other
related items to ensure the institution is still providing
quality programs for veterans/eligible individuals. The
approval function remains a vital function and should not be
modified or changed.
Continuing approval by SAAs of individual programs will provide
the necessary oversight and will avoid fraud, waste, and abuse
and thus protect veteran's benefits. Another important point to
note is that since the payment of tuition and fees go directly
to the institutions for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, there is a
definite potential for increased fraud, waste, and abuse. SAAs
will continue to provide oversight thus ensuring the quality
and integrity of the learning experience.
Supervision of institutions/establishments:
SAA staff conducts supervisory visits at all approved
institutions/ establishments. By contract with DVA, a minimum
of 80 percent of the active institutions/establishments are
visited on an annual basis. These visits are not only a time to
review all approval criteria to ensure approval requirements
continue to be met but also to provide training/information to
Certifying Officials. A recent survey conducted by NASAA
indicates that 27 percent of Certifying Officials would contact
their SAA first with questions. In another item, 44 percent
said that their SAA is their primary source of training. DVA
was named by only 28 percent. This reinforces the SAA being the
``face of the GI Bill at the State level.'' Additional details
of this survey were provided to Juan Lara on August 20, 2009,
in a meeting with Skip Gebhart, Director of the West Virginia
SAA and Member of NASAA's Legislative Committee. It is also
important to note that there are times when major issues with
an institution are discovered during a supervisory visit. These
include IHLs that are regionally accredited. For example,
several years ago a major problem with recordkeeping for non-
degree programs at Villanova University in Pennsylvania was
discovered during a visit. It was necessary for an additional
visit and a total records review (73 records in total) was
conducted. Working with the Certifying Officials, an adequate
records keeping system was developed and implemented. This
avoided the need to suspend the approval for Villanova
University. This is only one example of how SAAs work to ensure
all requirements are met and to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse.
The bottom line is that SAA roles should not be curtailed in any
area. All activities assigned to SAAs are vital to the continued
success of the GI Bill. Further ability to exercise professional
judgment will be helpful to meeting the requirements of law,
Congressional intent, and the needs of veterans to reach their career
goals. Beginning with the DVA centralization of the Chapter 30
education program in the early 1990s, the presence of the DVA in States
has steadily fallen. Today, nearly one-fourth of our States do not have
an Education Liaison Representative based in their State.
SAAs will continue to meet the demands of our assigned roles with
vigor. SAAs get the job done now because they have the professional
expertise and experience to focus the efforts where they are needed.
They understand the unique challenges of all schools and training
establishments within our purview. No other agency, Federal or State,
understands the schools and training establishments and State rules and
regulations better than SAAs.
Rather than curtail the SAA roles, Congress should support an
expansion of our function to include increased responsibilities in
oversight and expansion. With the expansion of the GI Bill, it is
imperative to spend the time and money up front in conducting detailed
approval reviews of policies, procedures, and programs of schools. It
is just as important that compliance activities be conducted at the
back end to ensure program and fiscal integrity. Again, no one is
better placed to conduct oversight activities than SAAs.
Accordingly, NASAA would support an increased compliance role for
SAAs. Multiple SAAs have been assisting with compliance surveys. It has
worked well. With increased funding, our recommendation is that SAA
involvement in compliance surveys should be expanded to as many States
as possible. In general, oversight activities are generally best left
to States and various local entities. Overall responsibility for
compliance surveys will remain with DVA; however, each SAA could assist
DVA in this effort by conducting the field work.
3. In Mission number 7 you state that guidance to benefit recipients
and others will change dramatically after the new GI Bill goes
into effect. Is this a current need or anticipated need because
the new GI Bill has not gone into effect?
This is an ongoing need. SAAs have seen a drastic increase in
questions from veterans/reservists/dependents and Certifying Officials
resulting from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The number and complexity of
these questions has increased as the implementation date approached.
Following August 1, 2009, many SAAs have indicated there has been an
increase in inquiries. In addition, SAA staff has provided many
briefings and other training workshops for a variety of individuals.
These have included high level institution officials, Department of
Defense personnel, interviews for newspapers and television, etc.
4. On an average month how many Congressional inquiries do the SAAs
receive?
Based on responses from 39 SAAs, the NASAA survey indicated that
more than 400 Congressional inquiries were handled by SAAs last year.
That is an average of about one a month per SAA. While this appears to
be a limited number of Congressional inquiries, it is important to keep
in mind this limited number is because SAA staff work closely with DVA
staff, Certifying Officials, and others to ``solve'' problems before
they are raised to Congressional level. It is anticipated that due to
the complexity and categories excluded from increased benefits (NCD
institutions, apprenticeship/on-the-job training establishments, flight
schools, and correspondence schools) of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
Congressional inquiries will increase. Many Congressional staff Members
know their SAAs and work with them.
5. In your testimony you state that overpayments are typically caught
by ``extensive and comprehensive record checks conducted by the
SAA personnel.'' How often do SAA personnel conduct extensive
and comprehensive checks?
SAAs visit most facilities yearly. When SAAs visit institutions/
establishments, they conduct a records checks by randomly selecting a
portion of veterans records (if 20 or less, we typically do the whole
group). Staff then proceeds to review enrollment and other items. SAAs
should then proceed to review the systems employed by institutions to
ensure compliance with law and regulation.
The new GI Bill increases the potential for large overpayments, and
therefore makes records checks more important than ever for at least
two reasons. First, the amount of money involved has increased
significantly. Second, with educational benefits being transferred to
dependents, the number of drops/withdrawals can be expected to increase
since younger students are typically more likely to drop classes.
6. Last year, what percentage of schools were visited by SAA
personnel?
Last year, SAAs visited nearly 90 percent of educational
institutions and training establishments where veterans or other
eligible persons were enrolled.
7. How much oversight do the \1/2\ facilities require on an annual
basis?
It is important to understand that the \1/2\ facilities are
considered \1/2\ for funding purposes only. These are entire
establishments with as many complexities as educational institutions.
The ``\1/2\'' facility designation is an arbitrary value created by
DVA to differentiate schools from on-the-job training facilities for
funding purposes, the assumption being that on-the-job programs require
less (\1/2\) time to supervise. We do not believe this assumption is
valid. To the contrary, we believe that these facilities can require as
much of our time and assistance as a school. Some 90 percent of SAA
directors said in our recent survey that on-the-job training and
apprenticeship facilities require about the same amount of oversight OR
MORE. Many times SAA staff are the only professionals who visit them on
a regular basis.
8. On a national level how much is spent on: salary, fringe costs,
travel, administrative and outreach?
For 57 SAAs with a total of 260 full time equivalents, the
following data is provided.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary & Fringe Costs** $14,445,536.65 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel $1,061,206.41 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Allowance $2,601,499.99 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach*** $289,452.56 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Data was provided by DVA for Contract Year 2008.
**Each State sets the salary schedule, fringe benefit rate, and
professional qualifications for staff.
***This amount does not include salary and travel expenses related to
outreach activities.
9. In the past 3 years how many SAAs were unable to spend all their
funding?
The results of the NASAA survey indicate that 58 percent of the
agencies were unable to spend all of their funding during the past 3
years. DVA provided data for the number of agencies who returned over
$20,000 (18 agencies for 2006, 12 agencies for 2007, and 13 agencies
for 2008).
The nature of a reimbursement contract creates many complications.
While some States may return funds, many States are required to seek
supplemental funding to simply fulfill the requirements of law found in
the contract. Also, the issue becomes one of timing, State
restrictions, and the hiring process. For example, if the contract
provides funding for an additional staff member and the contract is not
issued until January of the contract year, SAAs could not start the
hiring process until after January. It would typically take 1 or 2
months to process the staff request through the appropriate State
channels at which point the actual advertisement could take place. In
the current economic climate, a number of States are also facing hiring
freezes and mandatory furloughs. All of these would impact their
ability to expend contract funds.
10. What changes would you make to the funding formula?
This is probably the most difficult question to answer. Any time
limited funds are divided, the exact formula will create problems. As
an example, the initial amounts from DVA for the 2010 contract year
have 32 agencies' funding decreased. For many years, the basis has been
the number of active institutions/establishments. While not all SAAs
have agreed with the end result, NASAA will continue to work to develop
a suggested method to divide the funding. Some of the core principles
that NASAA considers important when developing any funding formula are:
workload, variations in State salaries, geographic differences, and the
importance of maintaining a SAA in every State. During the 2010 Mid-
Winter meeting in February, NASAA will finalize a proposal for the 2011
funding formula and send it to the Department of Veterans Affairs
Central Office (DVACO). Our view is that we need to work with DVACO on
how the funding should be divided to ensure maximum use of the limited
funds and ensure SAAs can still fulfill their mission.
11. If the SAAs are being overwhelmed by the number of requests they
are receiving for information sessions regarding the new GI
Bill, should you pass those requests to the VA local office
directly?
In reality, there are no ``local DVA offices'' in many States as
far as education benefits are concerned. Processing is done in four
regional centers and individual States may or may not have an Education
Liaison Representative out-based from the regional center. Most SAAs
work closely with the DVA staff assigned to their State. However, the
NASAA survey indicated that there are at least 14 States that have no
DVA education staff assigned in-state. In addition, DVA staff is
overwhelmed with the implementation of the new GI Bill. Since each SAA
and DVA works as a team, it is best to let them divide the workload.
SAAs do pass a number of general inquiries and requests for information
sessions to DVA. However, SAAs are also reporting that DVA staff are
requesting assistance from the SAA in conducting information sessions
or passing the requests directly to the SAA.
Many times a beneficiary will call the SAA directly and does not
understand the right question to ask or out of frustration asks the
wrong question. Our offices often spend more time getting to the real
issue with the veteran than the person on the toll-free line does. We
generally have more experience and have been in the field long enough
to understand the intricacies of the problem especially if it has an
academic or training orientation.
12. If the work for SAAs is growing at a staggering rate, have you
defined what work should be directed to the VA and which work
the SAAs should do?
As discussed in the previous question, each SAA can work with DVA
staff to determine what is needed for their State. DVA is also
overwhelmed, and in many cases, there is no one at DVA with the same
expertise to do the work. We certainly agree with the inherent scope of
the question which is to say each SAA will continue to work with DVA
staff to provide the best possible service to veterans/eligible
individuals. Together we can provide the quality service that has been
earned by those who have or are continuing to serve our country.
13. Is training certifying officials a mission for the SAAs or is the
VA better suited to provide that training?
The short answer is that the training of Certifying Officials is
needed by both DVA and individual SAAs. A recent survey of school
officials showed, in fact, that 44 percent of them turn first to their
SAA for training, compared with only 28 percent who would turn to the
DVA. This is a significant validation of the SAAs effectiveness in
providing training to complement DVA efforts. In-state training can
range from DVA organized (with SAA assisting) to SAA organized (with
DVA staff assisting). In addition, DVA does conduct regional training
workshops. These provide training for the Certifying Official who can
travel. Usually, attendance is limited when looking at the total number
of Certifying Officials. For example, during the June Regional
Processing Office training workshop in Cincinnati, Ohio, there were
less than 20 Pennsylvania officials attending. In comparison, the
Pennsylvania SAA conducted nine Certifying Official Workshops
throughout the State in April with 474 institution/establishment
officials attending, and 16 one-half day training sessions on the new
GI Bill in July with 281 institution officials attending. The NASAA
survey indicated that at least 29 SAAs have hosted training with at
least 23 taking the lead in providing training. It is also important to
note that a significant amount of training occurs during SAA visits to
institutions/establishments.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 20, 2009
Mr. Keith M. Wilson
Director
Office of Education Service
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ``The Evolution of State Approving
Agencies'' on July 16, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Monday, August 31, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
July 16, 2009
Evolution of State Approving Agencies
Question 1: According to a GAO report published in March of 2007,
three recommendations were made: first, that the VA should require the
SAAs to track and report data on resources spent on approval
activities, second, the VA should collaborate with other agencies to
diminish any duplicative work and streamline the approval process, and
third, the VA should establish outcome-oriented performance measures to
assess the effectiveness of SAA efforts. Were any of these
recommendations implemented by the VA? If yes, what was the outcome? If
not, why were these recommendations not?
Response: In response to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report:
1. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented a tracking
and reporting system. Each contract now requires State approving
agencies (SAA) to track and report time spent on outreach activities
and expenses. The SAAs provide data to VA in quarterly outreach visit
reports.
2. VA collaborated with other Federal agencies and identified
potential overlap with approval activities. However, statutory
amendments to approval criteria are necessary to give the Secretary
authority to act on any findings of duplicative efforts.
a. Subsequent to the GAO findings, the Veterans Benefits
Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, amended 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3673 to provide that the Secretary shall take appropriate
actions to ensure the coordination of approval activities
performed by SAAs under this chapter and chapters 34 and 35 of
this title and approval activities performed by the Department
of Labor, the Department of Education, and other entities in
order to reduce overlap and improve efficiency in the
performance of such activities. The Act further provided that
VA must submit a report to Congress that includes information
on the actions taken to establish outcome-oriented performance
standards for SAAs, the actions taken to implement a tracking
and reporting system for resources expended for approval and
outreach activities by SAAs; and any recommendations for
legislative action that the Secretary considers appropriate to
take such actions.
b. VA transmitted the report to Congress in July 2009. As part
of the report, VA explained that further legislation is
necessary to give the Secretary the authority to act on any
findings of duplicative efforts. Further legislation is
necessary because 38 USC 3672 provides that a Veteran or
eligible person may not receive educational assistance unless
the program is approved by the SAA as provided for under the
provisions of chapter 36 of title 38. In addition to the
statutory requirement that the SAA must approve the program of
education, other provisions within chapter 36 provide the
criteria the SAA must apply when determining whether or not a
course or program may be approved.
c. VA stated the statute could be amended to provide the
Secretary with expanded authority to accept:
Registered apprenticeship approvals made by the
Department of Labor;
Flight programs offered by pilot schools approved
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA);
Accredited programs offered by public institutions
of higher learning (IHL) as approved for purposes of VA
benefits without a separate evaluation by the SAA;
Tests for licensing or certifications offered by
Federal, State, or local government;
Flight courses and training offered by flight
schools that have been issued a pilot school certificate by the
FAA;
Department of Labor or State apprenticeship
agencies registered apprenticeship training programs; and
Public and private secondary schools approved for
operation in the State in which they are operating.
d. If the Secretary was provided more discretion to direct SAA
activities, VA could focus SAA resources on programs offered by
proprietary institutions, nonaccredited institutions, and on-
the-job training programs that are not registered
apprenticeship programs. VA could then potentially use SAA
resources to conduct compliance reviews at institutions, as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
3. VA developed performance measures to assess the effectiveness
of the SAAs. The performance measures were implemented on November 1,
2008, and incorporated into the fiscal year (FY) 2009 contracts. FY
2009 performance will be reviewed at the joint peer review group (JPRG)
scheduled to meet in December 2009.
Question 2: Is it correct that VA counts apprenticeship and on-the-
job training as only \1/2\ of an active facility? If so, why is that
and how much oversight do they require on an annual basis?
Response: VA considers apprenticeship and on-the-job training (OJT)
as one-half of an active facility based on the amount of work required
to complete the initial approval and supervisory visits. For example,
SAAs do not have to review a lengthy school catalog for initial
approval of OJT or apprenticeship programs, which is required for IHLs.
SAAs are required to visit 80 percent of its active institutions
each fiscal year. They can include OJT or apprenticeship facilities as
part of this 80 percent. Oversight for OJT and apprenticeship
facilities is the same as required for IHLs. SAAs approve the program,
complete inspection of sites, communicate with the certifying official
as necessary, and complete supervisory visits. The primary difference
between a supervisory visit to an IHL and an OJT or apprenticeship is
the amount of time required for completion of the visit. Less time may
be required for the visit to an OJT or apprenticeship facility as the
facility may have just one Veteran in training. In such cases, less
documentation and records review are required.
Question 3: If the SAAS were abolished today, how much would it
cost the VA to perform the same functions?
Response: The staffing for SAAs in FY 2008 was 233 full-time
employees (181 professional staff/52 support staff). If VA replaces all
SAA employees with its own corresponding full-time employees, VA's
general operating expenses (GOE) will increase over $25 million each
fiscal year. Included in these expenses are payroll costs (salaries and
fringe benefits) as well as non-pay costs such as training, rent,
supplies, and equipment.
Question 4: On average, how many SAAs fail to spend all their
funds? Can these unexpended funds be transferred to a state running out
of money?
Response: Approximately 40 SAAs do not spend all of its allocated
funds each fiscal year. The amount returned varies from $700 to
$130,000. In FY 2008 eight SAAs returned less than $5,000 each, and 28
agencies returned more than $5,000 each. In the same year, $1 million
in funding was returned and 17 agencies requested supplemental funding
of approximately $763,000. There are several reasons the SAAs do not
spend all of their funds. Some of the common reasons are:
Hiring freezes imposed by the State that prevent the SAAs
from hiring as stipulated in the contract
Cancellations of travel associated with other contract
obligations
Separation of employees as a result of retirement or
resignation
An SAA may request a supplement to the contract when it has
expended its allocated funds. If funding has been returned, VA will
review each supplement request to determine if it can be granted. VA
will consider the following factors to approve or disapprove the
supplement request:
Justifications for the supplement
Allocation amount
Expenditures
SAA's rating
SAA's current workload and staffing levels
Previous supplement requests
The SAAs must show fiscal responsibility by upholding the
contracted funding before VA can award a supplement.
Question 5: Is the approval of programs by the SAAs unnecessary
since other government agencies already approve programs of studies?
Response: The statute provides that the SAA must approve programs
of education before VA may pay educational assistance to an eligible
Veteran or other eligible person. Legislation is necessary to provide
the Secretary additional authority.
Question 6: What efforts has the VA made to work with the
Department of Education and Department of Labor to identify any
duplicative efforts between the three agencies?
Response: VA formed working groups and met with the Department of
Labor and Department of Education to identify duplicative efforts
between the three agencies. VA determined the statute would need to be
amended in order for the Secretary to act on any duplicative efforts.
Question 7: How many of the SAAs are meeting the performance
measures outlined in your testimony?
Response: Education liaison representatives monitor the SAA's
quarterly reports and approvals, and work closely with SAAs to monitor
performance. Currently, two are having difficulty meeting the standards
set forth in the contract. VA continues to provide training and support
to the SAAs that are not meeting the standards set forth in the
contract. We have begun to conduct site visits at those facilities in
an effort to identify and resolve issues they are experiencing. Since
each SAA is experiencing different issues, we have also assigned
mentors to help them resolve their issues.
Full fiscal year performance will be reviewed at the JPRG scheduled
to meet in December 2009. The JPRG will review FY 2009 performance and
recommend ratings for each SAA.