STATEMENT BY
MICHAEL RATAJCZAK
DECISION REVIEW OFFICER, VA CLEVELAND REGIONAL OFFICE
ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND
MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
HOUSE VETERANS’ AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
ON
EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION TRAINING, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
Dear Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE). AFGE is the exclusive employee representative of the employees in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our views regarding VBA Disability and Compensation (C&P) Service training and performance management standards, methods to increase accountability and reduce rating variances and the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its recent report on these issues.
I currently serve VBA as a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the Cleveland VA Regional Office (RO). I joined VBA’s workforce in September of 2001. In the interim, I was assigned to the Tiger Team Remand Unit-which resolved some of the oldest pending Board of Veterans Appeals remands in the country and ultimately served as an operational model for VBA’s AppealsManagementCenter. I also served as a Specialized Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) in VBA’s Tiger Team and the Cleveland Resource Unit of the AppealsManagementCenter. My duties with VBA have also included temporary assignments to a Remand Quality Review Project which was intended, at least in part, to identify common errors occurring at the RO level which necessitate remand of cases to the RO by the Board of Veterans Appeals. I have served as in instructor in Centralized Challenge Courses for newly hired RVSRs on three occasions. In addition, I currently serveas AFGE’s designated representative on VBA’s Design Committees for Basic and Journey-level RVSRe Certification Testing. Prior to my employment with the VA, I was an attorney in private practice.
In preparation for this testimony I reviewed the Congressional testimony provided by VBA officials over the past three years. I was struck by some consistent themes in that testimony, specifically, while not excusing the ever increasing pending case inventory at VBA, their testimony has consistently cited the growing or increased complexity of claims as one factor in that burgeoning inventory. VBA’s testimony also consistently cited the implementation of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and continuing judicial refinement or definition of the duty to assist veterans under that law, in least in part, to explain VBA’s increasing claims inventory.
What particularly struck me was that VBA’s testimony never mentioned the obviousimpact of claims complexity and duty to assist on VBA’s ability to develop and adjudicate claims, or review case development and adjudications upon notice of disagreement from claimants.
What I would ask this Subcommittee to consideris that increased claims complexity and additional duties imposed by law are perhaps the most important factors contributing to performance, and that effective training is an essential component of any effort by VBA to process claims more timely, consistently and accurately.I would also ask this Subcommittee to consider how veterans seeking benefits are shortchanged by VBA’s failure to make any accommodation in performance standards to reflect growing claims complexity and new legal requirements, more specifically claims processors are being held to production standards which do not allow adequate time to develop, consider, and resolve complex claims in accordance with the duties imposed by law.
VBA Training Lacks Consistency and Accountability
GAO found in its May 2008 report on training and performance management that VBA’s training program for claims processors does not consistently track completion of the training or ensure that the program is universally or consistently adhered to at the RO Office level. To the extent the GAO recommends that VBA be held accountable for fully implementing and tracking the training it mandates and deems necessary, it is laudable.
However, I am very concerned that the report could be misread to imply that the individual claims processor are ultimately responsible for ensuring that they complete their mandatory training requirements. It is VBA management’s responsibility to ensure that relevant and effective training is completed by claims processors, and provide the necessary time and resources for completion. No individual claims processor can demand of their local management that they receive training when a determination is made that employee resources are better devoted to other concerns, such as fulfilling a monthly or fiscal year production goal. Management’s failure to devote time to the initial and continuing education of claims processors in favor of fulfilling a short-term production goal is similar to VBA eating its seed corn, since it deprives claims processors of the means to become more efficient, accurate, and able to adapt in the fulfillment of their ever changing and increasingly complex duties.
I also urge this Subcommittee to take note of VBA’s certification testing program for VSRs and RVSRs to test individual claims processors, that is ostensibly designed to determine how effective training. In view of GAO’s findings on training, certification testing cannot adequately fulfill itsobjective. I note that the VA has concurred in the GAO's conclusions, specifically, “VBA has a standardized curriculum for new staff and a training requirement for all staff, but does not hold staff accountable for meeting this requirement." VBA's failure to adequately implement and track its mandated training will places an unfair burden on the individual claims processors who have not or will not achieve a passing score on certification testing.
In order for training to be meaningful, management must afford the participant time to read and analyze the material, and internalize its meaning through cognitive effort and practical application. The complexity of the claims process administered by VBA does not admit to simple resolution by reference to checklists, decision trees or presentation of information without elucidation. This complexity is well illustrated by a videotape that was recently shown to VBA claims processors on the application of GAF (global assessment of functioning) scores in the context of assigning disability ratings for service connected posttraumatic stress disorder. Thistwo hour training video focuses on one very discrete issue in rating a very specific type of claim that is fraught with difficulties. It serves as a reminder that even when well-prepared training material is presented by highly competent and learned professionals it can be of limited value when presented in the absence of an opportunity for meaningful active learning. Passively view a training video must be combined with the opportunity for trainees to receive timely feedback from an individual who understands the subject and who can provide relevant, consistent, and immediate instruction to the individual struggling to internalize the meaning of the material in the context of the duties attendant to his or her position.
Similarly, while materials such as Fast Letters, Training Letters, and Decision Assessment Documents may be useful in drawing a claims processor’s attention to a particular nuance or change in the claims process, they do not necessarily serve, in and of themselves, as useful training tools. The usefulness of such materials are further diminished if claims processors are not given adequate time to digest the materials VBA provides to notify them of changes in interpretation or implementation of policies, regulations, statutes, or case law.
Effectiveness of training at VBA should include, therefore, not only incorporate tracking mechanisms to ensure that all required training is provided, but also change the way continuing training (i.e. training beyond initial Challenge Instruction) is conducted at the Regional Office level. I urge this Subcommittee to consider creating and maintaining a cadre of instructors at every Regional Office who have completed the Instructor Development Curriculum, and who are available to implement training material prepared by VBA’s Central Office in accordance with a curriculum that does not vary by Regional Office.
Such an approach also would enhance VBA’s mission to reduce variability in claims adjudication among ROs. Moreover, if material prepared for such instruction did not merely relay information (e.g. holding of a recent Court case) but also provided concrete examples of how the information being presented should be applied along with specific and legally sufficient language to follow for such application, claims processing productivity would be enhanced. GAO’s findings confirm the benefits of centralized training: the centralized development, design and implementation of VBA’s new hire curriculum are highly regarded.
The breakdown in VA's training process seems to occur at two critical junctures: first, at the Regional Office level where time devoted toward training may be viewed as an unwarranted impediment to achieving immediate production goals; and second, between VBA Central Office and ROs because VBA Central Office may not adequately identify trends in errors that are amenable to training, and does not generally provide specific relevant curricula for continuing education of employees.
The presence of a team of qualified instructors at every RO, charged with implementing a curriculum prepared by Central Office staff and accountable to Central Office staff, would close the gap between VBA Central Office’s expectations for training and conflicting or incompatible goals of local management.
Performance Management Standards
VBA recognizes that increasingly complex claims and continuous refinement of the legal requirements attendant to claims processing has a detrimental effect on the size of VBA’s pending workload inventory. However, VBA has either failed or refused to recognize that those same factors have a detrimental effect on the productivity of individual claims processors insofar as additional time is necessary to develop, adjudicate, or review claims. By not adjusting individual productivity standards to reflect the increasing complexity and difficulty of the claims process, VBA may once again be failing to provide the service its claimants deserve. The needs of claimants intersect with the requirements imposed on claims adjudicators precisely in the implementation of performance standards. If a claims processor is required to choose between developing, rating, or reviewing a case in accordance with all legal requirements and fulfilling their production requirements, a temptation is presented to make a decision in favor of their own immediate interests. As an example, RVSRs are generally given no production credit for identifying development deficiencies in a given case, and directing action to correct those deficiencies via deferred rating actions. Often, such deferred actions are time-consuming and complex. Consequently, RVSRs are often met with a choice between meeting their productivity requirements and ensuring that decisions are rendered in accordance with all applicable duty to assist requirements and are, in essence, given no meaningful credit for ensuring that claims are adequately developed. One of the many unfortunate side-effects of this problem is that the VSRs charged with developing claims oftentimes receive no meaningful feedback from RVSRs concerning development deficiencies. Of course, the ultimate effect of this system is felt by claimants, and reflected in an increasing appeal rate. Such a system of measuring “productivity” is disrespectful to claims processors. Productivity requirements that do not take into account the increased time necessary to develop, adjudicate, or review increasingly complex claims in an increasingly stringent legal environment ultimately lead to bad service for claimants, since productivity is often rewarded over quality. This phenomenon is generally referred to as “production pressure” and is universally decried by most stakeholders in the VA claims process as ultimately detrimental and disrespectful to the constituency VBA is intended to serve.
As AFGE has urged this Subcommittee in the past, I cannot understate the importance of conducting thorough time-motion studies administered by a qualified and independent entity so that VBAs performance standards for claims processors may be informed and adjusted by reference to valid and scientific data. Unless and until VBA has valid empirical evidence concerning what claims adjudicators can reasonably be expected to accomplish in a given period, any mandate concerning what those employees must do in the same period will be suspect. Moreover, insofar as such suspect standards are used to project the need for additional human resources or trends concerning future claims inventory levels, any projections upon which they are based will also be suspect. VBA cannot continue to set performance standards for claims processors in the absence of empirical evidence, or by fiat with reference to the “experience” of personnel years removed from any meaningful contact with the day-to-day exigencies of claims processing, and expect to meaningfully address workload trends or human capital requirements.
If VBA believes production standards can be validly set and informed solely by reference to the collective experience of those advocating the standards, at the very least those developing production standards (i.e. managers who have typically been removed from front line adjudication for years) should be required to devote a portion of their workday (e.g. 50 percent) to developing or adjudicating claims in order to keep a fresh perspective of what it takes to conform to an individual position description. Such a requirement would also have the benefit of reducing the pending claims inventory.
Increased tracking and implementation of continuing training at VBA is laudable, but only insofar as it will ultimately serve claimants. An educated and well-trained workforce should be one of VBA’s highest goals. However, VBA’s claims processing workforce should also be afforded adequate time to perform their duties in accordance with their training, and that consideration should be reflected in individual performance standards.
Methods to Increase Accountability and Reduce Rating Variances
If continuing training of VBA claims processors is made consistent by reference to a curriculum created by VBA centralized training staff and implemented by a corps of instructors accountable to VBA’s Central Office, rating variances could reasonably be expected to decrease as claims processors conform their individual activities to their uniform training.
AFGE views the GAO report not as an indictment on the claims processor’s skills, abilities,or willingness to learn as much as description of VBA’s inability to provide relevant, useful continuing training to those employees oradequately track or ascertain the efficacy of training that is provided. That point needs to be emphasized. Ultimately, training deficiencies at VBA are not the productof nor should they be theresponsibility of individual claims processors.
The claims processing workforceat VBA ice among of the finest and most dedicated workforces in government. Unfortunately, insofar as VBA may inadequately provide continuing training toclaims processors and then attempts to hold them responsible for deficiencies in quality and productivity, claims processors may be disproportionately affected by inadequate training. To illustrate that fact it might be instructivefor this Subcommittee to inquire of VBA whether they can recall a specific instance of any VBA manager who has ever been disciplined, demoted, or formally reprimanded for failing to adequately train an employee to perform his/her duties. Unfortunately, there are numerous instances of long term claims processors with good work histories being disciplined, demoted, formally reprimanded, or even discharged for failing to meet their productivity or quality requirements. The crux of the problem is a failure to provide the continuing training necessary for our members tobe productive, efficientand accurate in fulfillment of their duties.The onus of inadequate training is disproportionately borne by VBA employees charged with the day to day processing of claims and the constituency they are honored to serve.
Thank you for soliciting our input in this matter. I would be pleased to address any questions or concerns you may have concerning my testimony.
MICHAEL RATAJCZAK, DECISION REVIEW OFFICER
CLEVELAND VA REGIONAL OFFICE
Michael Ratajczak is currently a Decision Review Officer at the Cleveland VA Regional Office, and has served in that capacity since July of 2007. He began his career with the Department of Veterans Affairs in September of 2001 as a Rating Veterans Service Representative.From January 2003 through February of 2005,Mr. Ratajczak served on VA’s Tiger Team Remand Unit,which resolved some of the oldest pending Board of Veterans Appeals remands in the country and ultimately served as an operational model for VA’s AppealsManagementCenter. From February of 2005 through December of 2006, Mr. Ratajczak served as a Specialized Rating Veterans Service Representative in VA’s Tiger Team and the Cleveland Resource Unit of VA’s AppealsManagementCenter.
Mr. Ratajczak’s duties with VA have also included temporary assignments to a Remand Quality Review Project which was intended, at least in part, to identify common VA Regional Office errors which necessitate remand of cases by the Board of Veterans Appeals. Mr. Ratajczak has served as in instructor in Centralized Challenge Courses for newly hired Rating Veterans Service Representatives on three occasions, and is currently AFGE’s designated representative on VA’s Design Committees for Basic and Journey-level Rating Veterans Service Representative Certification Testing. Prior to his employment with VA, Mr. Ratajczak was an attorney in private practice.
September 18, 2008
The Honorable John Hall, Chairman
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC20515
Dear Chairman Hall:
The American Federation of Government Employees has not received any federal grants or contracts, during this year or in the last two years, from any agency or program relevant to the subject of the September 18, 2008 hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs concerning Veterans’ Benefits Administration Training, Performance Management and Accountability.
Sincerely,
Beth Moten
Legislative and Political Director
1
{00253899.DOC}