BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
LOU CORREA, CHAIRMAN
Bill No: AB 882
Author: Cook
Version: As proposed
Hearing Date: June 28, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Donald E. Wilson
SUBJECT OF BILL
Delivery of veterans benefits in four counties.
PROPOSED LAW
1. Creates the County Veteran Service Center pilot program
in four counties in partnership with Employment Development
Department (EDD).
2. Program sunsets on January 1, 2016.
3. California law would conform to Federal law (Higher
Education Opportunity Act) by entitling members of the
Armed Services and their dependents to in-state tuition at
publicly funded post-secondary institutions.
4. Proposed amendment - Conforms California Law to Federal
Law in relation to residency status for university
enrollment.
5. Proposed amendment - Requests the UC system to follow
these guidelines also.
EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND
1. Establishes the Department of Veterans Affairs.
2. County Veteran Service Organization Survey, CDVA
January 2010: In January 2010, the California
Department of Veterans Affairs surveyed County Veteran
Service Offices (CVSOs). A total of 32 CVSO
representatives completed the questionnaire, which
addressed such issues as training, use of work
studies, claim submissions, transportation options,
and program budget cuts. The summary below is a
selection of the survey's findings, primarily focused
on workforce development needs of veterans.
The three top priority "needs" of veterans were
reported as advocacy and assistance with benefits,
employment, and healthcare. Other high priority
issues included financial assistance, housing and
homelessness, and dental care.
The most pressing administrative issue
identified was having very limited funding for
support staff which impaired the ability of the CVSO
to provide outreach, file claims, and generally meet
local veterans' needs in a timely fashion.
While 65.6% of all CVSOs served veterans on
both an appointment and walk-in basis, 62.5%
reported having waiting lists for veterans who have
requested assistance with claims or a benefit
analysis.
1. Since 1946, California has received an annual
workforce development grant called the Jobs for
Veterans State Grant Program from the federal
Department of Labor (DOL). Federal guidance defines
the funds as a limited use "staffing grant." Recent
changes have shifted the funding from a "staffing
grant" to now being considered a "resource". The
Employment Development Department (EDD) administers
the program through a five- year Business Plan.
2. Key Objectives of the business plan are as follows
Implementation of AB 3065, Chapter 590,
Statutes of 2008, which allows veterans without
civil service status to take promotional exams;
Partnerships with public utilities and
community colleges to train and employ veterans;
Development of business relationships with
various organizations in the health care, banking,
transportation and green industries, as well as
other emerging technology fields.
Page 2
Continuing to assess and target
veteran-friendly industries for additional
recruiting and marketing programs to veterans;
Providing WIA funds to public and private
sector entities in partnership with the EDD for job
training and placement for veterans in high growth
fields such as health care, emergency medical
technology, construction, security, law enforcement
and computer services; and
Recruiting, training, and preparing Veteran
Workforce Specialists and Veteran Employment Service
Specialist staff in anticipation of higher than
average retirement of eligible employees over the
next five years.
1. California has low veteran participation rates in
federal programs compared to other states with large
veteran populations such as Texas.
2. Texas used to have similarly low participation
rates such as California now has. In 2005 Texas
ranked 32nd amongst states in veteran employment.
Texas now has more veterans collecting federal
benefits than California does in spite of the fact
that California has approximately 400,000 more
veterans than Texas does.
3. Most attribute Texas's success to the fact that in
2006 it transferred its veteran workforce program from
its workforce commission to its veteran's commission.
According to the author's office, "Texas' prior poor
performance was attributed to a lack focus and limited
ability to provide direct assistance to unemployed
veterans. The veteran representatives at the Texas
One Stops served a variety of client groups including
veterans. Once the workforce programs were
transferred, the TVC convened a veteran stakeholder
focus group to develop clear performance standards and
reporting requirements to help guide the program. In
addition, the veteran representatives at the One Stops
were directed to exclusively serve veterans as guided
by the newly established standards."
Page 3
4. AB 716 (Huber) of 2009 was intended to help CDVA
identify veterans in the state with the help of EDD
and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The bill
was vetoed by the governor.
5. AB 1378 of 2010 (V. Manual Perez), which passed
this committee, dealt with evaluating expenditures of
the DOL Grant. This bill was held in Rules Committee.
6. AB 748 of 2010 (Gilmore) would have combined the
EDD operations with CDVA to better serve veterans. It
passed this committee 4-0.
7. Federal law entitles Armed Services members and
their dependents to resident classification for the
purposes of public post-secondary tuition/fees so long
as the member, spouse, or dependent child is
continuously enrolled at an institution.
COMMENT
1. It would be preferable to duplicate the success of
Texas, which this committee has supported, but the
legislature as a whole has heretofore been unwilling to
replicate Texas's success.
2. Part of what would help veterans on two fronts is to
move the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to the purview
of CDVA. This would enable CDVA to both keep track of
veterans in its new database and offer them services
directly. It would be a suggested amendment to this bill
with the exception of the fact that Assembly Appropriations
removed it.
The heart of this bill was essentially gutted in the
Assembly contrary to the wishes of this committee when it
passed AB 748 of 2010 (Gilmore). The original form of this
bill would have dealt with the issues of substance abuse,
employment, and transition to the civilian world.
3. There is a debate in Washington, D.C. at the present
time that may adversely affect WIA dollars, which could
further adversely affect the retraining portion of the one
stop centers.
Page 4
4. Amendments to the Education Code seek to conform state
law to Federal Law.
5. When dealing with the drafting of state laws, it is
boilerplate language to "request" the UC system to comply.
If however, this is conforming language to federal statute,
and Federal Law supersedes state law, then UC should
already be providing resident tuition to active duty
members. Is this language in the bill because it is going
into the state code, or is UC violating Federal Law?
SUPPORT
None received
OPPOSE
None received
Page 5