Testifying to the House Veterans Affairs Committee about improvements tot he GI Bill

U.S. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
“VA Education Benefits Roundtable”

Testimony, Tom Tarantino, IAVA Policy Associate

Testimony made possible by a massive contribution from Patrick Campbell

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 present our proposed legislative recommendations to improve the Post 9/11 GI Bill and other VA education benefits. IAVA firmly believes that the Post 9/11 GI Bill will give servicemembers, veterans and their families the opportunity to achieve a first class future. As you well know, our work on the GI Bill did not end on August 1^st. We now have the duty to preserve this historic investment for future generations of veterans and their families by finishing the work we started last year.

Streamlining and Simplifying the Post 9/11 GI Bill
IAVA concurs with the recommendations of The Military Coalition (TMC) and many of our fellow veterans groups that the following four essential upgrades to the Post 9/11 GI Bill must be put into effect without delay:

• Fully cover tuition and fees at any public undergraduate school, while setting a national baseline for the Yellow Ribbon program for private and graduate schools.
• Authorize Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits for Title 32 Active Guard Reserve (AGRs).
• Grant Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to veterans who enroll in vocational programs, apprenticeships and On The Job training (OJT).
• Provide a living allowance for full-time distance learners based on the zip code in which the veteran lives.

These proposed upgrades will reduce VA processing times by pruning unnecessary bureaucratic steps and will allow many veterans access to this generous benefit, which they have rightfully earned.

Tuition/Fees Benefit Must Be Upgraded

The VA’s interpretation of tuition/fees benefits has created undue confusion and magnified inequities within the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The current method of determining tuition/fees benefits is confusing, unpredictable and inequitable.

Confusing – Any of the 44 veterans attending University of Sioux Falls (USF), in South Dakota, who read on the VA’s GI Bill website that the Post 9/11 GI Bill pays up to $4,748/term in fees will likely be in for a big sticker shock when they receive a large bill from their school for tuition not paid by the new GI Bill. A student taking 15 units at USF will only receive $1,501/semester (not $4,748) and will be left with a bill of nearly $10,000 for that semester. They will soon realize, as many other veterans are now discovering, that while schools, like USF, regularly use the words tuition and fees interchangeably the VA makes a radical distinction between the two words. This has profound effect on veterans’ benefits. This arbitrary split between tuition and fees is without any precedent in law, VA, or Department of Higher Education regulations. This distinction causes unnecessary confusion and financial strain for veterans who shouldn’t have to be lawyer to decode their education benefits.

Unpredictable – The 93 veterans attending the University of Tampa must have been severely disappointed to learn that Florida tuition rates under the Post 9/11 GI Bill fell to $295/credit this year from $682/credit posted on the VA website last year. They essentially lost $12,000 in tuition benefits this year alone, simply because Florida changed the tuition rates at one of their public schools. Tuition caps have changed 587% since last year’s final posting on the VA’s website. This makes it impossible for a veteran to predict from year to year what the Post 9/11 GI Bill will pay. Massachusetts’s rates jumped from $71/credit to over $300/credit after the August 1^st deadline, which was supposedly the finalized tuition and fees rate for the year. This required VA claims processors to reevaluate all the Massachusetts claims they had already processed. This resulted in wasted VA resources, in terms of cost and personnel time, which we know are already limited. And what will the VA do now that the University of California has raised their tuition rates midyear? Will CA rates increase in-kind to cover the new charges? Or will veterans attending public school be forced to pay out of pocket?

Inequitable – Benefits for tuition and fees differ widely between states and bear no relation with the actual cost of education in each state. More than half of veterans (58%) are entitled to tuition benefits worth less than $15,000/year, while a small minority of veterans (8%) can get up to $45,000/year. For example, a veteran attending the online University of Phoenix (UoP) in Northwest Arkansas will get about $6,500/year toward their tuition and fees out of the $11,100/year UoP charges. Compare this to a veteran attending University of Phoenix in Wichita (KS) who will get $12,150 covering their entire education at UoP. Compare that to a veteran attending Rice University in Texas, which costs $30,000/yr, who will have their entire education paid for without a dime of help from the yellow ribbon program. More shockingly, a veteran attending school overseas, like at the Moscow Power Engineering Institute, will receive more toward their tuition and fees than a student in school in any of the states represented on this subcommittee, except for New Jersey. This inequity is unfair and unsustainable.

This chart highlights how much the Post 9/11 GI Bill will cover toward tuition and fees in each state and the total number of veterans who are eligible for those benefits. We have highlighted those states that receive modest tuition and fees payments and the few states that will receive dramatically more by plotting them on the graph.

The essential promise of the Post 9/11 GI Bill is that it will cover the full cost of tuition and fees at any public undergraduate college in the nation. We propose to simply fulfill that promise by abolishing the state-by-state tuition and fees caps system and simply promise to cover all charges for public undergraduate programs. If a veteran wants to attend a private or graduate program they will be entitled to a generous and equitable sum that will serve as the baseline for the yellow ribbon program for all students across the country.

This solution greatly reduces confusion by giving veterans a simple promise to pay up to a certain amount regardless of whether it is called tuition or fees. By establishing a single baseline, veterans will be able make sound decisions about whether they can afford to attend a particular college. Additionally, all private and graduate schools will be forced to compete for student veterans because the baseline for the yellow ribbon program will apply equally to all private and graduate programs. Lastly, this will speed up VA processing of GI Bill claims considerably.

In order to avoid any future confusion in the implementation of a solution like this, we believe several issues should be addressed directly in statute.

1) Setting the national baseline for the yellow ribbon program.

2) Dispersing benefits to part time or nontraditional students.

3) The entitlements of students attending multiple schools (public and private).

These are all the types of questions that were not answered or addressed in the Post 9/11 GI Bill and contributed to the current state of affairs.

1) Setting the national baseline for the yellow ribbon program.

IAVA believes that the national baseline should be both generous and equitable. After comparing Department of Education data and historical GI Bill numbers, we believe that the national baseline for the yellow ribbon should be at least the median private school cost for 2008 which was $19,173/year. This new baseline would help nearly 111,000 veterans receive an equitable tuition and fees benefit, an average increase of $7,621/veteran. We do not believe that pegging benefits to the median cost is a suitable long-term solution. Instead, we suggest establishing a single number no less than the previous year’s median cost that would be indexed yearly to the rising cost of tuition just like the MGIB.

2) Dispersing benefits to part time or nontraditional students.

The VA currently divides tuition and fees benefits based on the number of credit hours enrolled and also gives a flat rate per term. This system is fundamentally flawed because the VA has no uniform definition of what a “credit hour” or “term” consists of. Therefore, veterans attending schools with semesters receive 50% less in tuition and fees then their quarter system counterparts because they simply have fewer credit hours and terms. IAVA believes that the new tuition and fees benefit should be set based on a traditional academic year of 9 months and then prorated by month for part time and nontraditional students. For example, if the national baseline is $20,000/academic year (9 months long) and the student is attending a nontraditional program that only lasts one month then they would receive $2,222 in tuition and fees (1/9^th of the yearly rate).

3) The entitlements of students attending multiple schools (public and private).

The issue of dual enrolled students is partially responsible the VA benefits conundrum over tuition and fees in the first place. The VA cited dual enrollees as one of their key factors for creating a dual tuition and fee cap system. Under our proposed system dual enrolled students, all public undergrads or all private and graduate students, will be fairly easy to determine. However, what if a veteran is attending a private school and a public school concurrently. IAVA believes that public undergraduate should always be paid and any amount paid to the public school should be then subtracted from the baseline for the yellow ribbon program. For example, if the baseline is set at $20,000/year and a veteran is attending Princeton ($30,000/yr) and a community college concurrently ($2,000/year) the veteran will receive $2,000 toward the community college and $18,000 toward Princeton.

Full Time National Guard Servicemembers Left Behind

National Guard members, serving on full-time active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve program (AGR), are the only cohort of currently serving members excluded from Chapter 33 eligibility. Moreover, their counterparts in the Federal Reserve forces AGR program are eligible for Chapter 33. Last year there were almost 30,000 Army National Guard and 13,500 Air National Guard servicemembers serving on Title 32 active duty orders. Guard AGRs are responsible for supporting homeland security missions and preparing Guard formations for operational deployments.

Solution: Authorize Title 32 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) service for Post- 9/11 benefits. (H.R. 3554, the National Guard Education Equality Act, Rep. Loebsack)

Vocational Student Denied Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits

The WWII GI Bill sent over 8 million veterans to school, many of who did not seek college degrees but rather participated in vocational and apprenticeship training programs. Unfortunately modern veterans, nearly 16,000 of which who are pursuing vocational training, will not be able to access the new GI Bill. Veterans can pursue vocational certificate programs just not at a vocational school. Non-degree granting schools, or vocational schools, are specifically excluded from the new GI Bill and no provision was made for Apprenticeship and On The Job training (OJT) programs. Both types of programs were covered under the old GI Bill.

Veterans pursuing a vocational program should not be penalized for going to a non-traditional school. We believe that veterans attending vocational schools should be entitled to the same Post 9/11 type benefits as a veteran attending a vocational program at a community college. We also believe that veterans in apprenticeship and OJT program deserve a benefit under the Post 9/11 GI Bill.

Solution: Abolish the institution of higher education requirement under the Post 9/11 GI Bill and grant Post 9/11 benefits for vocational, OTJ and apprenticeship programs.

Online Students Penalized Under the New GI Bill

Veterans attempting to earn a degree through distance learning should be entitled to the same benefits as veterans attending traditional brick and mortar institutions. Currently these veterans do not qualify for a living allowance, unless they take at least one course “in residence.” One brick and mortar class qualifies the student for the full living allowance. This exception reveals that the “in residence” requirement was simply a way of determining the proper living allowance rate because they are based on the ZIP code of the school and is not a statement on the quality of distance learning.

Distance learning is a highly popular form of education for veterans. This unfair distinction must be rectified. IAVA acknowledges that a different process of determining housing allowance rates must be employed for distance learners. IAVA recommends basing the housing allowance for distance learning on the zip code of the veteran’s residence or establishing a national distance learning living allowance rate.

Solution: Provide a living allowance for distance learners.

(H.R. 3467, Veterans Education Enhancement and Fairness Act, Rep. Carney)

You want a mission, but need a job

I began my military career in 1997 when I enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as a Civil Affairs Specialist. At the time, I was a freshman at a local community college and looking for a challenge. I remained enlisted for 4 years, attaining the rank of Sergeant, and earning an Associates Degree in Behavioral Science. During my tenure as a Civil Affairs Specialist, I was trained in populace resource control, disaster and emergency management, civil defense, and humanitarian aid. Upon completion of a deployment to Bosnia in 2000, I was awarded an RTOC Scholarship to the University of California Santa Barbara. In 2001, I left Civil Affairs and became a cadet. In 2002, I graduated from UCSB with a degree Global Studies and International Relations and was commissioned a 2LT in the Armor Branch. For the next four year I served as a combat arms officer; holding several jobs. Beginning as an assistant maintenance officer, I restructured the service schedule of over 130 combat vehicles. As a cavalry and mortar platoon leader, I lead soldiers through combat and monthly training exercises as the OPFOR at the National Training Center. As an Executive officer, I was responsible for the logistics and administration of a headquarters company of which I spent 6 out of the 12 months in command of. As a public relations officer, I was the public face of a regiment that not only trained the force, but preparing to deploy themselves. I had a long and honorable service. I gained skills and accomplished tasks that many of my civilian peers would not face until much later in their careers. Conventional wisdom backed up by rhetoric from the transitional assistance programs dictated that I should have no problems finding equivalent employment in the civilian world.

This however, turned out not to be the case. After putting my belongings in to storage and returning home after 10 years, I began what would be a 10 month journey of shock, disappointment and education as to the disposition of the civilian work force toward members of the military. I began my search as many do by reaching out to recruitment agencies that specialize in military to civilian transition. I found that working with these agencies gave me access to the corporate world that was closed to me when searching on my own. Through them I interviewed with over 20 companies, reaching the offer stage 5 times over the course of 10 months. With the single exception of my current position; on my own I never once received a reply or initial interview from similar companies in positions that I was either perfectly or over qualified for. I learned that in the civilian world, military achievements and equivalent skills are neither understood, nor valued. Too often I hit roadblocks relating to knowledge of proprietary systems, types of degrees and a general lack of understanding as to the nature of military jobs. In many positions I had practical experiences that matched or far exceeded the prospective job, yet employers did not understand or were not interested in learning how experience as an officer translated in to their industry. It was only through the access provided to me by various military to civilian head hunting agencies, that I was able to get interviews.

The transition assistance programs that one is required to go through makes several assumptions about the soldier leaving the Army. It assumes that the soldier is young and of college age. Most of the advice and placement help provided by the Army Civilian Alumni Program (ACAP) is geared toward entry level positions for people with little to no transferable leadership skills. It also does not provide a comprehensive MOS translation system for officers. Enlisted soldiers have several resources that translate their MOS skills and education to equivalent civilian certificates and job descriptions. There is no such system for officers. While the four day course is informative and provides us with valuable information about the VA and our rights as veterans, the advice given to us as perspective job seekers is lacking in both context and accuracy. This training that is done by military to civilian recruiters is far more accurate and efficient. Over all, I found that the transition assistance program was geared toward young enlisted soldiers. As an officer, it was clear that I was on my own.

I found that corporate Americans valued my service as citizens, but were weary of it as employers. While much of my experience was lost in translation, I found that it was not the only issue that I had to overcome. As a combat arms officer, I did not possess any one particular specialized technical skill, but rather a familiarity with a wide range of skill sets that could be useful in many fields. The phrase often used is “jack of all trades, yet master of none”. I found that while qualified in a general sense, my lack of experience with systems such as six sigma, MS project, or various internal systems put me at a disadvantage when competing with others. Additionally, I found that there was a fear attached hiring former combat soldiers as the stigma of combat stress, put me in a position of being a potential liability to the company. Not wanting to start over as an intern after a successful 10 year career, I pressed on with my job search. As I went on countless 3^rd and 4^th interviews, I found that when it came to an offer, companies usually went with internal candidates or someone with less practical experience but more degrees or certificates.

Military to civilian transition is tough no matter how you look at it. Your culture changes, your perspective is different, and your priorities are vastly different from your peers. You are going from having a mission, to having a job, and that is a perspective shift that makes adapting to the civilian environment difficult and trying.

Going through the motions: VA Claims Processing

Originally posted December 5, 2008

It is all too familiar to hear that VA disability claims are endlessly backlogged. With the national average of claims pending over 6 months hovering consistently at around 20%, it is clear that the problem is system wide with no easy solutions. In 2007 and 2008 Congress increased the VA budget to allow for the hiring of over 4000 new claims processors. This was a major step forward, but it did not address the underlying problem that nobody talks about. It's easy to throw money at the system and simply hire more hands to process the claims, but what happens when the backlog remains, or the numbers simply shift from claims processing to claims appeals?

This is where we get to the heart of the problem. The biggest issue is not with the number of claims processed, but with the quality of the processed claims. Quality is the key to timeliness. Timeliness follows from quality because poor record development, failure to accurately process claims and erroneous decisions require the claims to continually cycle through the process, which adds to the load of an already overburdened system.

An article in newsday.com this week outlines many of the issues surrounding VA disability claims development in the New York office:

The VA became so concerned that employees had misplaced key documents such as marriage certificates and medical records that they offered amnesty to encourage their return. Some 700 documents were recovered anonymously, Walcoff said.

The massive agency has already been pummeled by accusations that employees have lost, misplaced or shredded documents across the country.

While systematic boneheaded mistakes are certainly alarming and gaining national attention, there is a deeper issue involved that speaks to a culture at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) that places premiums on easily quantifiable statistics, a work credit system that focuses on quantity, and poor methods of training VBA employees and managers.

VBA's current work credit system does not take into account the correct or incorrect outcome of the claim, but rather focuses on the number of tasks completed by the individuals rating the claim. This ultimately leads to very little individual accountability within the VBA. Employees receive credit for the work they do, regardless of whether they did the work correctly. Under this system, there is little incentive for any employee to do the work correctly the first time.

According to a recent GAO report the VBAs methods of training are also sorely lacking in both accountability and proper methodology.

Currently, claims processors at the VA regional offices must conduct 80 hours of annual standardized training as part of the VA's performance management system. Yet VBA officials could not identify the criteria or analysis that was used in determining the 80 hour requirement.

Additionally, the agency does not hold claims processors or managers accountable for meeting the annual training requirement. Furthermore, the training programs are not based on feedback from processors, nor do they take in to account the most common errors found in processing over the last fiscal year.

What this all adds up to is a passive and apathetic VBA that did not prepare for the influx of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor is jumping to reform its current broken practices. I hope that the new administration and the new VA Secretary will replace the current crop of managers in the VBA with leaders who are not afraid ask tough questions and implement reforms. Until then, it's up to all of us to keep watching and ensure that the VA is ultimately accountable to those that it is supposed to serve.

Military Voting

Originally posted October 3, 2008

Our most basic charge as service member is to defend the country and its way of life. No action exemplifies the core principles of freedom more than the simple act of voting. It is our most basic right and one that we have had to fight for throughout our history. One would think that for those charged with its defense, casting a vote would be simple. Sadly, this is not the case. Many service members vote not in the district in which they are stationed, but in their home of record. The transitory lifestyle of the military makes this a common and necessary practice, and local municipalities generally have effective procedures in place to accommodate its constituents serving around the country. However, for those serving overseas the process is difficult, and for those deployed overseas, the process is practically impossible to navigate without the help and support of the DOD.

In 2000, I was deployed to Bosnia during the Presidential Primary Elections. Knowing beforehand that I would be deployed, I applied for an absentee ballot. As I did not know where I would be stationed, I had it sent to my parents thinking that they would be able to send it to me, and I could return it in time. As you can imagine, this was not the case. The ballot took two weeks to get to me at Camp Tuzla, another two weeks for it to return to California, and it missed the deadline. For all of us who have been deployed, we all know and accept the realities of the Military postal system. By and large, the system works pretty well, but it is near impossible to deal with anything time sensitive. In Bosnia, the system was unpredictable. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the system is functional, but chaotic. Clearly, there needs to be a special emphasis and assistance from the DOD in order to ensure that those who are fighting for our freedoms are able to cast their vote and be counted.

Currently the DOD uses the Federal Voter Assistance Program (FVAP), which provides a 460 page instruction manual detailing the step by step procedures for completing and sending the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA). The FPCA is a combined voter registration and absentee ballot application that was created from the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voter Act of 1986. As states have a variety of different requirements, the "catch all" FPCA is difficult to fill out and a significant portion end up getting rejected by the states. According to a Pew Research study, 40,000 military FPCAs were rejected in 2006 due to some error in filling out state requirements. Furthermore, units Voter Assistance Officers are not given proper training on the difference between local registration and the FPCA.

In 2004 I was appointed as the Voter Assistance Officer (VAO) for my Troop. The only information or guidance I received was the memo assigning me the extra duty. Being responsible, I set out on my own to find resources and pathways to get my soldiers registered either locally or in their home state. I did locate the FVAP, and made attempts to get every soldier that was interested properly registered. In 2004 this was not as easy of a task as it is today. In garrison, this program works, as it relies on the predictability of the US. Mail. However, the Pew study shows that in 2004 VAOs reached only 50%of military voters. Furthermore, states require a myriad of different requirements that lead to confusion and error when filling out the FPCA. The Federal Voter Assistance Program is assigned the responsibility to register overseas voters, yet does not have the authority to affect and change the systems needed to make registration happen.

On October 1, the Senate passed S 3073, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. This act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for collecting absentee ballots of military overseas voters in elections for federal office; and delivering such ballots to the appropriate state election officials. Additionally, it mandates that the delivery must take place prior to the polls closing and authorized the DOD to use express mail and contract delivery services to ensure local receipt of ballots.

This Act takes care of the biggest and most obvious flaw with Federal Voter Assistance Program. As anyone who has been deployed will tell you, it is impossible to plan for anything time sensitive through the mail from a combat zone. In 2006 86% of the FPCAs were sent via the mail, and with the military postal system average round trip being 24-36 days to and from Iraq and Afghanistan there is little to no room for error. Given that most service members transfer units every two to three years, and are deployed every 18- 24 months; most addresses are obsolete by the next election cycle. In 2006 this resulted in 35,000 military and overseas citizen absentee ballots being returned to local election officials as undeliverable. By requiring the DOD to ensure the safe and timely passage of military ballots to their home districts each election cycle, service members are one step closer toward ensuring that the vote that they fight to defend gets counted. Additionally, by not distinguishing between FPCAs and locally obtained election materials, the DOD allows for a much smoother process in requesting and returning the service member's absentee ballot.

S 3073 is not a complete solution. While it does provide a greater level of assistance to the service members in ensuring timely delivery of election materials, it does not directly address the variance in state registration requirements, nor does it provide the FVAP broader authorities in reducing barriers for military voters. S3073 is a good first step, and one that I feel is long since overdue.

Testimony for the House Veterans Affairs Committee

Originally posted September 29, 2008

House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health
"Oversight Hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs Suicide Prevention Hotline"
Testimony of Tom Tarantino, Policy Associate

Mr. Chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and our more than 100,000 members nationwide, I thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding veteran suicide, and the Department of Veterans Affairs' outreach efforts.

Since the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have witnessed a dramatic upswing in suicide rates among troops on active-duty and veterans. In 2006, the suicide rate for active-duty soldiers reached its highest level in decades, with 97 Army suicides. In 2007, this disturbing trend escalated beyond all expectations to 115. And just last week, it was revealed that the suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2008 are likely to be even higher, as there have been 62 confirmed and 31 suspected suicides already this year. Tragically, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army suicide rate is on track to exceed that of the civilian population.

While the rate of military suicides is closely monitored, the VA only just recently began tracking the suicide rate for veterans. From 2002 – 2005, 141 veterans who left the service after September 11, 2001 took their own lives. In 2006 alone, there were 113 suicides among Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans. The suicide rate for male veterans ages 18-29 in 2006 was about 46 suicides per 100,000, compared with about 20 suicides per 100,000 for their nonveteran peers. And these are just the cases that are being tracked by the VA. For veterans of all generations, data on suicide is equally troubling. While veterans make up only 13% of the U.S. population, they account for 20% of the suicides. As evidenced by these statistics, suicide is likely to be a long term problem for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Multiple tours, inadequate dwell time between tours, strained relationships, and financial difficulties have all contributed to the rising rate of suicide among active-duty troops and veterans. Mental health injuries are also a major risk factor. According to a RAND study, 300,000 of the 1.7 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will develop combat-related mental health issues. Many of these cases will go untreated, and if allowed, develop into severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Suicide is the end result of multiple failures in our military and veterans' mental health care systems. Inadequate mental health screening upon redeployment, professional and personal stigma attached to mental health care, and inadequate VA outreach have brought us to this crisis, with little to no end in sight.

The establishment of the VA suicide hotline last year was a critical first step in reversing this trend, and with over 55,000 calls received, it is clear that the VA moving in the right direction in getting the message out about this service. The success of the VA hotline is admirable and we applaud them for making this toll-free hotline available to veterans in need. But with the hotline averaging 250 calls per day from troubled veterans and concerned family members, it is clear that more needs to be done to reach out to vulnerable veterans and get them the help they desperately need.

The VA is currently testing outreach advertisements in the Washington, DC region. While these efforts are necessary, the execution leaves much to be desired. Appearing on buses and trains, these print ads do not adequately relate to veterans of this conflict and are not as effective as they could be. The silhouette employed in the ad is clearly not of a modern soldier, and the ad itself blends into the background of ads that litter our public transportation system. It is clear that while the VA had the right idea with their outreach efforts, they have not done sufficient advertising research to connect with veterans of the current conflicts.

IAVA is doing its part to reach out to new veterans, and ensure that they know about the services available to them. IAVA has recently partnered with the Ad Council for a historic 3-year Public Service Announcement campaign set to launch on Veterans Day. It is our belief that through extensive research, testing and the use of multiple mediums, including TV, radio, print, and the internet, we will be able to reach those veterans who need and do not typically seek help.

However, outreach alone will not stem the rise in veteran suicide. IAVA believes that a mandatory and confidential mental health screening with a mental health professional pre- and post- deployment is the first and most critical step in the early detection and prevention of combat-stress injuries that so frequently lead to suicide. Additionally, IAVA believes that the VA must open its doors to the families of veterans so that they can receive and participate in the recovery and reintegration of our service men and women. Coupled with a targeted and thoughtful outreach campaign by both the VA and the VSOs, these critical actions can begin to stem the tide of suicides that is tragically affecting our nation's heroes.

It is clear by the success of the VA hotline that there are those out there who want to reach out and need to receive care. Now, we must redouble our efforts to reach out to those who are reluctant, yet need care none the less. IAVA looks forward to working with the VA and the VSO community to ramp up outreach and formulate a message that modern veterans will respond to. The alarming trend of suicides can be reversed and we are committed to providing any and all assistance needed to the VA to improve their outreach efforts. Together as a community, we can help our brothers and sisters return from war and readjust from warrior to citizen.