Veterans’ Priority of Service Implementing Veterans’ Priority of Service Atlanta Recovery & Reemployment Forum May 28, 2009 Mr. Billy Miller from the VETS ATL regional office will be the moderator for this session and will open with this title slide on the screen. He will mention that since this is a “Green” conference there will not be any hand-outs but will provide info on where attendees can find this presentation and other related information. In addition, Mr. Miller will introduce the presenters.

Session Outline and Presenters Priority of Service (POS) for Covered Persons Policy Guidance and Other Expectations The Florida Model Miguel A. Hernandez, USDOL/VETS - ATL Region Ms. Linda Lundy, USDOL - ATL Region Ms. Lois Scott, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Billy: This is a brief outline of what we’ll be covering during this session. Mr. Hernandez will be focusing on some of the highlights of priority of service – in terms of history, the final regulations, definitions, and things of that nature…. And our ETA colleague, Ms. Linda Lundy will be focusing on expectations for policy guidance, technical assistance and providing related updates. THE BULK of our time to go to focus on Florida’s experience implementing priority of service and we’ve asked our State colleague and Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Director Ms. Lois Scott to share Florida’s model including the challenges they’ve experienced and how they’re dealing with those challenges. So let’s get started!

Priority of Service for Covered Persons Miguel A. Hernandez Veterans’ Program Specialist U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service Atlanta Region Hernandez.miguel@dol.gov Billy: Mike Hernandez will be our first speaker for this session so let me turn it over to Mike. 3

Priority of Service Background and Basics Some History P.L. 107-288 (Jobs for Veterans Act) – 2002 Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 5-03 – 2003 P.L. 109-461 – 2006 Proposed Regulations – August 2008 Final Rule – January 19, 2009 (effective) Applies to “covered persons” – veterans and eligible spouses Thank you and good morning! First, let me give you a kind of historical, chronological summary of the “road to the final regulations” so to speak in terms of legislation, policy guidance and – finally – the regulations that were published on December 19, 2008 which became effective one month later – on January 19th, 2009. The concept of Priority of Service, as it pertains to Wagner-Peyser, is rooted back to 1980 when POS for veterans became policy for Wagner-Peyser. (Can point to each of the bullets as you speak without “reading them.” Can also specify what PL 109-461 from 2006 actually was, which was the Veterans’ Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006.) The important aspect of that statute for priority of service is the one-sentence section that required the Department of Labor to publish regulations by December 2008. Also, although we may use the term “veterans’ priority of service” in everyday conversation (and I do the very same thing), I wanted to start off by clarifying that the final regulations pertain to COVERED PERSONS, which includes veterans but also eligible spouses. TRANSITION STATEMENT: In terms of what we mean by “veteran,” let’s turn to that next… 4

Qualified Job Training Program Two Key Definitions Veteran [38 USC 101(2)] Active military service Discharged under “other than dishonorable” conditions Qualified Job Training Program Workforce training programs funded in whole or in part by USDOL First off, although as I just stated the final regulations pertain specifically to COVERED PERSONS, which includes “veterans” and “eligible spouses, the definition of eligible spouse is relatively straightforward, so these are really the two definitions that are key in the final regulations in terms of understanding and applying POS. Can also read each bullet if you add some specifics. For example: The term VETERAN is codified at Title 38 (that’s the section of the United States Code that’s highlighted on the slide and many folks have heard the term “Title 38” in discussions…). Here, we’re specifically talking about ACTIVE military service, and that includes full-time duty in the National Guard or a Reserve component other than duty for training purposes. In terms of discharge, the individual could have been discharged for ANY reason as long as it’s other than dishonorable; in other words, only a discharge that is clearly categorized as dishonorable would bar a veteran from being eligible for priority of service. Finally, we are talking about ANY workforce program that’s funded in whole or in part by DOL funds. Transition/Turning to next slide: Let me say a little more about the definition for veteran… 5

“Veteran” Definitions USDOL Solicitor’s Office determined the definition at 38 U.S.C. 101(2) applies for priority of service Functionally equivalent to WIA and applies to WIA program eligibility Differs from Wagner-Peyser definition of “eligible veteran” – which includes 180-day criterion and applies to DVOP/LVER program eligibility and Wagner-Peyser program reporting Note: Many comments stated preference for one definition for both POS and program eligibility purposes but DOL lacks authority to revise statutory definitions. GAO has recommended to Congress that we have a standardized definition for workforce programs. As stated on this slide, our Solicitor has determined that the Title 38 definition of a veteran applies for priority of service…and this is fine for WIA program eligibility but as many of you know, it’s different from the Wagner-Peyser definition that includes the 180-day stipulation and that applies to eligibility for DVOP or LVER services and Wagner-Peyser reporting on the quarterly 9002 reports. This is somewhat confusing and, yes, many of the comments submitted after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published centered around the definition of the term “veteran.” But as the final regulations state very clearly in the Preamble section, DOL lacks the authority to revise definitions that are contained in statutes through the regulatory process. I should also add that the Government Accountability Office has recommended to the Congress that the definition of veteran be standardized across workforce programs because of the difficulty, especially when we look at the integration of programs and service delivery under the “One-Stop Vision.” Transition: So let me summarize the definitions in terms of priority of service and in terms of program eligibility… 6

Priority and Program Eligibility For priority of service purposes, the regulations establish the definitions that apply for Veteran and Eligible Spouse For program eligibility purposes, program intent or focus establishes the definitions that apply to the specific programs For the purpose of applying priority of service rules, the final regulations establish the definitions that the workforce system must utilize and that we have just discussed. For the purpose of program eligibility, various statutes (and what we have here is the term “other sources”) establish the definitions that are used. The bottom line here is that the burden of applying both the POS and WP definitions will fall on the One-Stop Centers. The POS definition applies to those veterans who access the workforce system remotely or through the One-Stops. The WP definition applies to eligibility for DVOP/LVER services and to reporting on all WP services. We understand that applying the definitions correctly for these two different purposes may well be a challenge for you but as was stated earlier DOL has no say in this matter. 7

Extent of Priority of Service POS applies to all DOL funded programs. An agreement to implement POS is a condition for receipt of all DOL job training funds POS applies to all sub-recipients, including sub-grantees, subcontractors, and those delivering services under other types of agreements Priority of Service cannot be waived Going back to the coverage of priority of service, or where it applies, as stated in the first bullet, it applies to EVERY job training program funded by the Department, whereby the receipt of those funds is tantamount to an agreement to implement priority of service consistent with the final regulations. And it applies to all “levels” of funding, including recipients and every level of sub-recipient. And the final point on this slide…Priority of Service cannot be waived. No recipient or sub-recipient of DOL funding for workforce programs can waive these regulatory requirements. 8

The right to take precedence over non-covered persons, which may mean: Priority Defined The right to take precedence over non-covered persons, which may mean: Covered person gains access to service or resource earlier than the non-covered person Covered person receives service or resource instead of a non-covered person when resources are limited I realize that we’ve been talking about priority of service without really defining it and that’s what we are doing on this slide… Priority of service means the right to take precedence over non-covered persons. Depending on the type of service or resource being sought, taking precedence can mean (first sub-bullet) that the covered person has access earlier than the non-covered person or that (second sub-bullet) the covered person receives the service or resource instead of the non-covered person in circumstances where the service or resource is limited. However, with the recovery act we don’t see there will be any shortage of training dollars. Transition: How this precedence is actually implemented across programs or – another way of saying this is – what priority of service in action means is captured in the regulations and on the next couple of slides… 9

“Precedence” in a Program Context Universal Access Programs Do not target specific groups Covered persons receive first level of priority Non-covered persons receive second level of priority Discretionary Targeting Programs Focus on special groups but not mandated Non-covered persons who meet the discretionary target receive second level of priority Non-covered persons who do not meet the discretionary target receive third level of priority The regulations talk about Universal Access Programs, Discretionary Targeting Programs, and Statutory Targeting Programs. For Universal Access Programs that have no specified target groups, covered persons (in other words, veterans and eligible spouses as those terms are defined in the regulations…) receive the 1st level of priority; they go to the front of the line so to speak ahead of non-covered persons. For Discretionary Targeting Programs where the focus on particular groups is encouraged, for instance, but not specifically mandated, covered persons once again receive priority – even if they do not meet the discretionary targeting criteria – followed by non-covered persons who meet those criteria, and next by non-covered persons who do not meet those criteria. 10

“Precedence” in a Program Context (cont’d) Statutory Targeting Programs A mandatory priority or focus on certain groups For persons who meet the mandatory priority: Covered persons receive the first level of priority Non-covered persons receive the second level of priority For persons who don’t meet the mandatory priority: Covered persons receive the third level of priority Non-covered persons receive the fourth level of priority For Statutory Targeting Programs, which require by law that the program focus on certain groups, covered persons who fall within the statutory target receive first priority, followed by non-covered persons within the target group. Next, covered persons who don’t meet the statutory target would receive precedence over non-covered persons who don’t meet the statutory target. 11

Implementation “Nuggets” POS must be addressed in State Strategic Plans and policies must apply to SWAs, LWIBs and One-Stop Career Centers Covered persons must be Identified at point of entry to a program or a One-Stop Center Made aware of their entitlement to priority of service, the services and resources available, and the eligibility requirements that apply Before I turn the presentation over to my ETA colleague, I wanted to end with what I’m calling a few “implementation nuggets.” First off, priority of service must be addressed in state strategic plans, and I understand that many or all states are submitting their WIA and Wagner-Peyser Strategic Plans by June 30th. In addition, POS policies apply not just to State Workforce Agencies, but to Local Workforce Investment Boards, and One-Stops. Next, the regulations require that covered persons be identified at the point of entry, and this means that states and local areas and One-Stop Centers have to develop and implement policies, procedures and processes to ensure that covered persons are made aware of their entitlement to priority of service, the services and resources available, and any associated eligibility requirements. 12

Implementation “Nuggets” (cont’d) The regulations specify that identification processes do not include verification of covered person status at the point of entry unless the covered person immediately undergoes eligibility determination and enrollment Simply put, priority of service is ensuring that the full range of services in a One-Stop Career Center are made available to veterans and eligible spouses. Another very important point is that the regulations clearly specify that identifying covered persons at the point of entry DOES NOT MEAN obtaining a DD-214 or otherwise verifying covered person status – whether the person is a veteran or eligible spouse. That doesn’t occur unless and until there is a determination of eligibility. The Preamble to the final regulations also talk about this critical point in some detail and add that “…the Department believes that the covered person should be enrolled and given immediate priority and then be permitted to follow-up subsequently with any required verification of his/her status as a covered person.” I should also state that the Preamble clearly specifies DOL’s intent to issue guidance around the area of verification, including identifying acceptable sources for verifying that individuals are properly included in the veteran and eligible spouse categories. We know this guidance would be welcomed insofar as it might have positive implications for program eligibility processes by identifying acceptable alternatives to the DD-214 for WIA, for instance. For now the bottom line is that POS is to be treated as a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion. Before I turn it back over to Mr. Miller, let me wrap it up by saying that the intent of priority of service IS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO VETERANS AND ELIGIBLE SPOUSES THE FULL RANGE OF SERVICES MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH DOL FUNDING. Let me touch on one more item and that is that In some service delivery environments it is believed that referring all veterans and eligible spouses to a DVOP or LVER satisfies the requirement to provide priority of service. This is incorrect. Providing POS is the responsibility of the entire workforce service delivery system. If you have specific questions on this, I’d like to ask that you defer those until the end and – in a circumstance where we are not able to answer your specific question, we will research and answers will be posted on the Community of Practice website. …and with that, I’d like to turn it back over to Mr. Miller… 13

Priority of Service for Covered Persons Ms. Linda Lundy Federal Project Officer U.S. Department of Labor - ETA Atlanta Region Lundy.linda@dol.gov MARIA Don Watson will be our first speaker for this session and, without further ado, let me turn it over to Don. Don? 14

ETA/VETS “Workgroup on Veterans” Discussion Overview ETA/VETS “Workgroup on Veterans” Policy Guidance (joint agency subgroup) Reporting Requirements Technical Assistance, including Models and Promising Practices and a Protocol 15

Joint ETA/VETS Workgroup on Veterans Vision: An ETA/VETS partnership committed to strengthening the workforce system’s delivery of the full range of employment and training services to veterans and their families in order to advance their civilian labor market success Mission includes “…to act as a catalyst to provide strategic guidance and technical assistance on the implementation of the priority of service statute and regulations.” There is a workgroup on veterans’ services that began several months ago. It is a JOINT ETA and VETS workgroup and – consistent with the “stages of group dynamics,” we’ve been forming, storming, norming and performing -- as part of our “norming,” we recently developed this vision and mission statement. Priority of service is part of the mission of this joint agency workgroup. We have a regional ETA point-of-contact on the workgroup (Maria Weidmark) who, in turn, disseminates relevant information to the assigned POS contacts in each regional office. DOLVETS has a similar structure insofar as identifying regional POS contacts who disseminate information. 16

Policy Guidance Subgroup Currently drafting policy guidance Staff from ETA and VETS involved ETA and VETS will issue joint or concurrent guidance Should include FAQs Ideally will include state and local policy and program models Sense of urgency given publication of final rule and workforce system needs! As PART of the larger veterans’ workgroup, there is a subgroup (consisting of four individuals) who are working on drafting policy guidance. This subgroup is also a joint ETA/VETS subgroup and Maria is part of this subgroup as well. [Review bullets and add relevant speaking points.] 17

Technical Assistance (e.g., Models/Promising Practices) USDOL/ETA and USDOL/VETS will disseminate guidance regarding: Policies Practices Procedures The next thing I want to say something about is that – in addition to the policy guidance we’re expecting to be published shortly, we ARE planning on robust and meaningful technical assistance effort across the workforce system. We expect this to include a lot of sharing of policies, practices, procedures, best practices, models, and the like. So definitely stay tuned. …in the meantime, we encourage you to read the Urban Institute Report if you haven’t done so already. All attendees have a copy of the Executive Summary and you can easily find the full report on-line that contains lots of suggestions and strategies for implementation. [Turn it back over to Maria who will quickly say a few words and then turn it over to Joyce. Transition: …and with that, I’d like to turn it over to Joyce Johnson, the Director of Field Operations for Colorado’s Department of Labor and Employment, who will talk about how implementing priority of service CAN BE DONE. Joyce… 18

Reporting Requirements Only six programs will be required to report on covered entrants but all other programs must adopt the definitions from the regulations for veteran and eligible spouses when OMB next approves their reporting requirements Reporting Timeframes Only the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) will report on covered entrants beginning PY 2009 Reporting on covered entrants required for Wagner-Peyser (including DVOP/LVER), WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, National Emergency Grants and Trade is waived for PY 2009 and is expected to commence in PY 2010 Notwithstanding definitions, which my colleague, Don Watson, has already discussed, many of the comments and questions we have received revolve around reporting requirements, especially the timeframe and related expectations… And that’s the purpose of this slide. First off, there are six workforce development programs that have served an average of 1000 or more covered persons each year during the three most recent years of operation and, therefore, will be required to report on covered entrants. ALL PROGRAMS, however, have to adopt the definition of veteran and the definition of eligible spouse contained in the final regulations whenever the Office of Management and Budget approves their respective reporting requirements. In terms of WHEN these six programs have to begin the associated reporting on covered entrants (and, by the way, the six programs I’m referring to are noted in the last two sub-bullets on this slide…), only one workforce program is expected to begin implementation this coming program year – or Program Year 2009, beginning July 1, 2009… and that’s the older worker program or Senior Community Service Employment Program. For the other five programs, reporting requirements will be waived for this coming program year and we expect implementation to begin NEXT program year, or PY 2010. In terms of rationale, we are expecting the reporting requirements for the other programs to become effective July 1, 2010 concurrent with the expected implementation of a streamlined performance/program reporting system (whether that’s WISPR or “son of WISPR”). That being said, I have one critical clarification to make (transition to next slide!)…. 19

Reporting Requirements (cont’d) Clarification: The delay in required reporting for priority of service does not mean a delay in implementing priority of service! 20