April 1, 2008

A summary of daily news relevant to the federal workforce produced by the Partnership for Public Service.

1. Federal Diary:  Veterans Return To Bleak Job Market
2. Most OPM Employees Like Their Jobs, Survey Says
3. Critics Call Border Patrol Standards Lax
4. Insurers Faulted as Overloading Social Security

Veterans Return To Bleak Job Market

The Washington Post
By Stephen Barr

Finding a job is turning out to be a very tough challenge for returning veterans; harder than for civilians of similar age and education.

Eighteen percent of the veterans recently back from tours of duty are unemployed. Of those employed since leaving the military, 25 percent earn less than $21,840 a year, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The data come from a survey of 1,941 veterans who left the military between December 2004 and January 2006. The survey is in line with Census Bureau and other data that indicate employment rates and wages are lower for troops returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones than their civilian peers.

"Transitioning back into employment, education, and/or training after completing military service can be challenging for some military personnel," the study says, adding that "it is vital" for the VA to better understand the programs and services it provides.

The survey was conducted for the VA by a consultant, who sent an analysis to the department last year. The survey findings have not been released by the VA but have been obtained by groups that advocate on behalf of veterans. They were reported by the Wall Street Journal last week.

VA spokesman Matt Smith said the VA, Defense Department and Labor Department "are working together to review the data provided in the report, interpret the data, consider what implications the data may have on programs administered by our departments, and determine what further research, if any, may be necessary."

He said the VA intends to release the report after the internal review is finished.

According to the survey, 48.4 percent of the respondents said they took advantage of the GI Bill, which provides up to $1,000 a month for 36 months for veterans who enroll in colleges or other education programs.

But the survey findings also raised questions about whether the GI Bill paid off in terms of higher income or a better job.

"Unfortunately, we found that receiving the GI Bill was not a strong predictor of successful employment outcomes such as high earnings, responsibility in civilian work and placement in senior management," the study says.

Even those using the GI Bill may not be competitive in the labor market. Private-sector personnel officials, for example, reported that many veterans "were not prepared to market themselves to the business environment -- they did not seem to understand the culture and expectations; thus were not career ready," the study says.

In general, returning military personnel often have trouble finding jobs that match their military occupations.

"Protective services," such as security and police work, and facilities and maintenance repair were the most popular occupations held by former enlisted personnel, the report says.

The survey respondents said they used the Internet, personal and professional contacts, newspaper ads and federal job listings to seek employment.

Compared to their peers, veterans are more likely to work for the government and less likely to work for a private-sector business or to be self-employed, according to Census data used in the study.

But many employers are not aware of the skills, especially in technology, held by former military personnel, the study says.

It recommended that the government look at new ways, including marketing campaigns, to help veterans find jobs in the private sector. "Education and training programs, such as the GI Bill, may need to be redesigned to maximize the transfer value of military experiences and enable internships and contract work that connects service members to career opportunities," the study says.

The VA has stepped up its efforts, offering employment services such as Coming Home to Work. The program provides job opportunities and work experience for personnel leaving the armed forces because of medical reasons.

But Vanessa Williamson, policy director for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said she was concerned by the survey's finding of an 18 percent unemployment rate for military personnel discharged in the last three years.

"Any American would agree that we need to support our troops and our veterans, but what level of support are we talking about when people coming back from war have low-income jobs and are struggling to make ends meet," Williamson said. "That doesn't sound like support to me."

Most OPM Employees Like Their Jobs, Survey Says

Federal Daily

According to results of the 2007 OPM Employee Survey, 93 percent of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) employees said they feel that the work they do is important, while 84 percent said they like their jobs. The agency-wide survey, released March 28, was conducted online in October and November 2007. Of those surveyed, 88 percent said they feel they are held accountable for achieving results and 86 percent know how their work relates to the agency's goals and priorities. OPM noted in a statement that the areas showing the greatest overall increase in positive responses include the assessment of employee training needs (up 14 percent); organizational satisfaction (up 12 percent); satisfaction with training received (up 11 percent); and satisfaction with employee recognition (up 11 percent). Also, the survey noted that of those polled, 59 percent said that prohibited personnel practices are not tolerated in their workplace and 51 percent said they could disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.

Critics Call Border Patrol Standards Lax

Houston Chronicle
By James Pinkerton and Susan Carrol

Complete coverage of immigration issues As the U.S. Border Patrol expands into one of the nation's largest federal law enforcement agencies, critics say it should establish minimum educational requirements and end a long-standing policy of accepting recruits without a high school diploma or GED.

Concerns about Border Patrol's hiring efforts come as the agency races to satisfy a Bush administration mandate to have 18,319 agents on the job by December. In the last year, the agency has been criticized for taking too many shortcuts, such as cutting its academy training schedule, as part of the biggest recruitment campaign in its history.

Recruiting standards are higher at most other federal law enforcement agencies. For example, a college degree and three years of professional experience are required by FBI agent recruits. The Houston Police Department and Harris County Sheriff's Office require not only high school, but two years of college.

One Houston immigrant-rights advocate expressed shock that Border Patrol didn't require a high school diploma.

'"You're kidding. Oh my God, I always thought they had to have high school at least," said Maria Jimenez, a longtime monitor of Border Patrol abuses.

An agency official said it's likely the agency has hired agents who weren't high school graduates, but he could not provide statistics.

'"Since that has not been a requirement since our inception, it stands to reason that we would have had agents who did not have a high school education or GED, however few those may be," said Lloyd Easterling, a Border Patrol assistant chief for security operations.

While recent agency records are not available, 12 percent to 14 percent of the agency's new hires from fiscal years 1994 to 1998 had only a high school diploma or a GED. The rest had at least some college or higher education.

'"The vast majority of our agents do have at least a high school education, and many, many have a college education," Easterling said.

He said since the Border Patrol's inception in 1924, there has been no education mandate.

"When we first began to recruit, many of our first qualified applicants were World War I veterans who'd been raised on ranches," Easterling said. "The high school diploma requirement was left out intentionally. Instead, we've relied upon a combination of experience and education and a series of tests, including the Border Patrol exam and academy and post-academy training."

To read the entire article, click here.

Insurers Faulted as Overloading Social Security

The New York Times
By Mary Williams Walsh

The Social Security system is choking on paperwork and spending millions of dollars a year screening dubious applications for disability benefits, according to lawsuits filed by whistle-blowers.

Insurance companies are the source of the problem, the lawsuits say. The insurers are forcing many people who file disability claims with them to also apply to Social Security — even people who clearly do not qualify for the government program.

The Social Security Administration defines "disabled" much more stringently than the insurers generally do, so it rejects most of the applications, at least initially. Often, the insurers then tell their claimants to appeal, the lawsuits say, raising the cost.

The insurers say that requiring a Social Security assessment is a standard practice and that there is nothing wrong with it.

The policies they sell allow them to coordinate their benefit payments with others to make sure no one is paid twice. Thus, if a disabled person can get benefits from somewhere else — like workers' compensation, a disability pension or Social Security — the insurance company can reduce the benefit check by that amount.

The flood of referrals, however, is making it hard for Social Security to respond to people who are truly disabled, said Kenneth D. Nibali, the former top administrator of the Social Security disability program.

"Anybody who is forced to come into this system, and who doesn't need to be there, is affecting someone else," said Mr. Nibali, who retired in 2002 and is serving as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. "They're holding up cases for the people who have been waiting for months and years, who in many cases are much worse off."

Already, the disability program is in much worse shape financially than the old-age portion of Social Security. It is projected to run out of money in 2026, 16 years ahead of the old-age trust fund.

The disability caseload is also expected to grow as the work force ages, since recovery time increases with age. The number of people waiting for hearings on their claims by an administrative law judge has more than doubled since 2000, and the average wait has grown to 512 days in that time, from 258 days.

To read the entire article, click here.