[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SPECIALLY ADAPTIVE HOUSING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-479 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JERRY McNERNEY, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 7, 2007
Page
Specially Adaptive Housing....................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, prepared statement of...... 31
Hon. John J. Hall................................................ 1
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 31
Hon. Joe Donnelly................................................ 6
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan
Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............. 22
Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo............................. 43
______
Blinded Veterans Association, Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D., Director of
Government Relations........................................... 18
Prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri........................... 34
Disabled American Veterans, Brian E. Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director........................................... 17
Prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence........................... 33
Homes for Our Troops, John Gonsalves, President and Founder...... 5
Prepared statement of Mr. Gonsalves.......................... 38
National Association of Home Builders, Brian Catalde, President,
and President and Chief Operating Officer, Paragon Communities,
El Segundo, CA................................................. 3
Prepared statement of Mr. Catalde............................ 36
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Carl Blake, National Legislative
Director....................................................... 15
Prepared statement of Mr. Blake.............................. 32
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Legion, Shannon L. Middleton, Deputy Director, Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, statement............... 45
Cooper, Don D., Tacoma, WA, statement............................ 46
Fraser, Linda, Rochester, IN, on behalf of her husband, Floyd
Fraser, statement.............................................. 47
Studebaker, William J., Granger, IN, statement................... 49
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, letter dated June 8, 2007, and
response letter dated July 10, 2007........................ 51
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans, letter dated June 8, 2007, and
DAV response from Joseph A. Violante....................... 52
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D., Director of Government Relations,
Blinded Veterans Association, letter dated June 8, 2007,
and response letter dated June 23, 2007.................... 53
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Brian Catalde, President, National Association of Home
Builders, and President and Chief Operating Officer,
Paragon Communities, El Segundo, California,
letter dated June 8, 2007 (No response was received from Mr.
Catalde).................................................. 54
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, letter dated June 8, 2007, and VA responses....... 55
Executive Summaries of the 2007 Lender Satisfaction Survey with
the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program; 2007 Specially Adapted
Housing Program: Grantee Survey; 2007 Specially Adapted Housing
Program: Non-Grantee Survey; and 2007 Veteran Satisfaction
Survey with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program.................. 57
SPECIALLY ADAPTIVE HOUSING
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly, Hall,
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. HALL
Mr. Hall [presiding]. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity hearing on Specially Adaptive Housing (SAH) will
come to order.
Before I begin with my opening statement, I would like to
inform all of our guests that Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin is
currently held up at another Committee markup and will be
joining us as soon as she is finished.
I would also like to inform the Subcommittee members and
attendees that the American Legion, Mr. William Studebaker, and
Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Fraser have asked to submit a written
statement for the hearing record.
If there is no objection, I ask for unanimous consent that
their statements be entered for the record. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
[The statements appear in the Submissions for the Record
and are on pages 45, 47 and 49.]
I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for
holding this important hearing. As we have discussed before,
the ratio of wounded to killed in Iraq is sixteen to one.
While this shows the drastic improvement in battlefield
medicine, caring for these new and severe injuries will require
long-term support from the Federal Government.
The Specially Adaptive Housing program is extremely
important to the health and well-being of our veterans. This
program is designed to allow our injured servicemembers to
return to their homes. It allows them to resume a more normal
life and being in a familiar environment, potentially helps
treatment for those with severe injuries.
However, I am deeply concerned that this program is
underfunded. The graphic next to me is a fundraising flyer for
Marine Sergeant Eddie Ryan.
Sergeant Ryan's story is very well-known in the Hudson
Valley. He was shot twice in the head in Ramadi. Doctors
thought he had little chance to survive. He battled, however,
and after months of therapy was well enough to begin to think
about returning home.
Home was not ready for him though. The hallway to his
bedroom was too small for his wheelchair and the living room
could not fit him and his family at the same time. Renovations
to the house were estimated at $100,000.
Since the house was owned by Sergeant Ryan's parents, he
was only eligible for $10,000. Out of desperation, the family
tried to get ABC's Extreme Makeover to modify their house. A
family whose son nearly died for his country had to beg a
television show to help them.
Nothing came of this and the family had to continue to look
for options. Eddie's parents ultimately transferred the house
to their child so they could receive $50,000. To make up the
difference, they relied on donated labor from local contractors
and fundraisers like the one you see advertised on the display
board to pay for the construction material.
Ultimately the house was remodeled and Eddie was able to
return home. He still faces serious rehabilitation and the
family continues to face out-of-pocket costs for his care.
The support Eddie Ryan received from his community is
heart-warming and laudable, but it should not be necessary. No
servicemember who has been seriously wounded defending his
country, nor his family, should be required to beg their
neighbors for support.
Eddie Ryan's family was dependent on help from local
Veterans Service Organizations (VSO's), on fundraisers, and on
people selling tee shirts to get the money to allow their son
to come home. The flyer is an indictment on how we treat our
veterans.
Families in this situation should be focused on helping
heal their wounded soldier. They should not be worried about
where the next check is coming from. These injured troops have
paid a very high price. It is incumbent on their government not
to ask them to pay the cost of adapting to their injury.
I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for any
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. I think the
story that we just heard really does tell us how important the
hearing is that we are going to have today. The Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program is relatively small and is not
as well known as programs such as the GI Bill. But it is
vitally important to those who qualify for the program, whether
as a result of combat, as we just heard of, or the effects of
diseases such as diabetes.
That is why I want to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for
holding the hearing and also for her leadership in this area. I
also thank our witnesses in advance for their testimonies on
this important program.
I note that the Chairwoman has a bill, H.R. 675, to
increase the maximum grant amounts and I would like to ask her
to add me to the list of cosponsors.
Again, the story that we just heard illustrates how
important this is. Legislation affecting veterans' programs,
including those designed to help our seriously disabled
veterans, must comply with the budget rules on mandatory
funding.
And I hope Mr. Pedigo can give us an estimate of the PAYGO
cost for that bill, the bill that we will be considering in the
future, so that we can go about the process of identifying
offsets.
And certainly myself and our staff will be working with Ms.
Herseth Sandlin and her staff in order to get those identified
and find whatever offsets that we can so that we can go ahead
and move her bill forward.
Again, thank you, Mr. Hall, and we really do look forward
to the testimony of the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 31.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
We have been called for a series of votes, so counsel has
informed me that our best course of action may be to take a
pause now, go vote, and then come back right away and hear from
our first panel.
I think if you would be patient with us while we do that,
that will be the quickest way of our getting to the testimony
that we all need to hear.
We will go into recess for ten minutes or so while we run
across the street and vote.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you all. The only thing we have to do
here is vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hall. Welcome back. You were not the ones who left. I
am welcoming us back. But at any rate, the Subcommittee will
come to order again.
Mr. Boozman, thank you for your remarks.
Joining us today in our first panel is Brian Catalde,
President of the National Association of Home Builders; and
John Gonsalves, President and Founder of Homes for Our Troops.
Your written statements will be entered into the hearing
record, so you may deviate from them if you would like.
Mr. Catalde, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF BRIAN CATALDE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOME BUILDERS, AND PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
PARAGON COMMUNITIES, EL SEGUNDO, CA; AND JOHN GONSALVES,
PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, HOMES FOR OUR TROOPS
STATEMENT OF BRIAN CATALDE
Mr. Catalde. Mr. Hall, Ranking Member Boozman, and members
of the Subcommittee, my name is Brian Catalde and I am
President of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to bring
focus on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) SAH
program and to explore ways the program can be expanded and
improved to better serve the thousands of severely injured
veterans whose homes must be modified in a way to allow them to
live independently.
The flexibility added in the ``Veterans Housing Option
Benefit Act,'' which was signed last June, went a long way to
help the SAH program, providing much-needed funds for the
veterans who otherwise would not be able to live independently.
I want to thank this Committee for their leadership in passing
that reform.
As you are aware, medical advances in the last years have
enabled many servicemen wounded in service to return from a war
which otherwise would have been a casualty in the past. As
builders and remodelers, the National Association membership is
committed to meeting the needs of these heroes.
The leadership and the staff of the National Association of
Home Builders Remodelers Council, an active sector of the
National Home Builders membership representing 14,000
remodelers, are spreading the word about the SAH program and
how it can be used to help the needs of the severely disabled
veterans.
One of the NAHB Remodelers' designation programs is
Certified Aging in Place Specialist or CAPS program. It was
created to equip the remodeler to specialize in the
acknowledgement and the needs of the aging homeowner.
The skill gained in the CAPS training program helps the
remodeler to understand and meet the needs for accessibility of
the SAH grant recipient. NAHB is working with the VA leadership
to encourage each of the VA SAH counselors to take the CAPS
certification. The training that will be given to them will be
of great help in their understanding of the remodeling
necessary to meet the grant program.
The remodelers have the tools to do the job to get it done,
but, however, some of the SAH program requirements discourage
industry participation in the program.
Number one, it is important to ensure that the grant is
spent wisely and work in the performance of meeting the vet's
needs. While VA accessibility requirements are reasonable, the
VA current process related to project approval is very
paperwork intensive and is out of step with the industry
issues. The benefit would be to minimize the paperwork and the
work will get done.
Number two, the grant under the SAH program often is too
low to meet the cost for the extensive changes to enable a
veteran to live independently in their home. The limits which
typically cover the cost of remodeling a kitchen, a bathroom,
and access, however, fall far short of the funding that is
needed.
The National Association of Home Builders recommend the
grant ceiling be doubled to the present level and also be
linked to a common measure of inflation which is CPI.
Finally, under the current law, only one grant can be used
for Temporary Residence Adaptation. This would pay for the
change of a residence of a family member where the vet is
temporarily residing.
And after the changes have been made in the relative's
home, sometimes what happens, the vet finds out he is unable to
do it on his own. There needs to be a change in this program.
If the vet is required to stay in this home, he should be
entitled to the same benefits as if he went out on his own.
This is a real problem and needs to be changed. We hope
that you would take our recommendations into consideration. And
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Catalde appears on p. 36.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin [presiding]. Thank you for your
recommendations.
Mr. Gonsalves, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GONSALVES
Mr. Gonsalves. Thank you.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, members of the Subcommittee, I
would like to thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.
My name is John Gonsalves and I am the President and Founder of
Homes for Our Troops. We are a nonprofit organization based in
Taunton, Massachusetts, whose mission is to build specially
adapted homes for severely injured servicemembers.
The biggest problem that we have found, and I have spelled
it out in here, is the amount of the Specially Adapted Housing
grant. We looked at historically where the grant has been over
the years.
In 1969, the grant as a percent of the cost of a new home
was 48 percent. At a high point in 1974, the grant was $25,000
where the new home price average was $36,000 representing a
percentage of 69 percent. At the current level, the $50,000
Specially Adapted Housing grant only represents 17 percent of
the average cost of building a new home.
If we were to allow the levels of the grant to increase
with the increased cost of homes and to maintain that amount
that existed in 1974, this grant would be nearly $200,000 right
now.
We on average incur about $332,000 to build these homes.
When we do these homes for the veteran, there is absolutely no
cost to the veterans. The veteran gets the home free and clear
with no mortgage.
We feel this is the right direction to go with this. If we
could get this grant to represent new home costs and start
looking into some of the other problems with the grant, we know
as an organization we could do a lot more by partnering with
the VA.
We have noticed also in the book most of it is around
wheelchair accessibility. We deal with veterans with a lot of
types of injuries. We are doing a home right now for a soldier
named James Fair. James suffered an injury, very severe, to his
right leg. He suffered a traumatic brain injury. He lost both
of his hands and is blind in both eyes. We need to really look
through this book and come up with new ways and new procedures
and new adaptations.
The first home we built when we initially submitted the
plans to the VA, the plans were turned down because we did not
have a roll-in shower and grab bars. We were building this home
for an upper bilateral amputee. With no arms, grab bars are not
going to help him.
Fortunately, we have been working with Brian Bixler and Pat
Arnold and they have been helping us along with a lot of these
processes, but these processes are still a bit difficult. We
have spelled out a lot of things that we hope you will
consider, but the main thing is the grant.
Many of these veterans, even with the grant, will not even
qualify for loans to try to build these homes on their own. If
we could do more with the VA and get this funding increased, I
am sure we could build a lot more homes.
We broke ground on our first home two years ago. Since
then, we have finished 18 projects. We have 20 underway and we
are going to take on 15 more. With the right type of funding in
place, I am sure we can do tenfold. And we would like to
continue with our efforts to make sure that these veterans have
no mortgage. We think they have paid more than a high enough
price for these homes.
I would like to thank you again for allowing me to speak.
We did pass out some supplemental information. Hopefully
everyone can look it over. We also included a DVD that shows
some of the types of adaptations we have done. James Fair, as I
mentioned, his will be one of the probably most technologically
advanced homes we will do.
We have formed a partnership with Carnegie Mellon
University and the University of Pittsburgh where we are
actually going to work to develop technology that does not
exist right now. There is a lot that we can do. I think it
takes full cooperation and hopefully a partnership between
Homes for Our Troops, the VA, and the members of the Committee.
And I would just like to offer my thanks again to be here,
to let you know what we are doing. The American people are more
than willing to get involved in things like this.
A few years ago when we started this, I was contacted by
the Department of Defense (DoD). They heard about groups like
ours and took action. They started a thing that is called
America Supports You. It is a Web site that the DoD has to list
organizations like ours. From its inception a few years ago,
when there was just a handful of us groups, it has grown. There
are now over 250 groups across the country doing everything
from baking cookies, to giving them to soldiers who are
deployed, to building homes.
The American people are willing to do this. The biggest
question we get asked when we are building homes for veterans
is what is the VA putting into these and when we tell them that
the grant is $50,000, most people are pretty shocked that that
is all it is, especially with today's home prices.
Our recommendation would be that this grant should be no
less than $145,000. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any
questions if you have them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonsalves appears on p. 38.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony and the
great work that you do through this important program.
I do have some questions, as I am sure the Ranking Member
does as well, but if Mr. Boozman would accommodate allowing Mr.
Donnelly to make an opening statement, I will recognize him now
for that statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE DONNELLY
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Boozman.
Unfortunately because of a scheduling conflict, I will not
be able to stay for the duration of this hearing. However, I
would just like to say a few words as we begin.
I believe the Specially Adaptive Housing program is a
crucial component in living up to our government's commitment
to America's veterans. In Lincoln's words, ``to care for him
whom shall have borne the battle. . . .''
SAH grants are instrumental in ensuring that Americans who
are seriously disabled in service to their country can live an
independent, safe, and productive life in their own home. This
is a program I think we can all strongly support and I am glad
our Subcommittee is taking a close look to see whether it can
be improved.
Today I am pleased to bring to the Subcommittee's attention
two pieces of testimony submitted by constituents of mine, one
by Mr. William Studebaker and one by Mr. Floyd Fraser and his
wife, Linda. In the words of Mr. Studebaker, the SAH grant has
been a life saver.
In both cases, these veterans and their families have good
overall opinions and I believe their testimonies provide
helpful, firsthand feedback on this program. Their stories also
hint at areas of the SAH program that could be improved.
Our Subcommittee should carefully consider whether the
current grant amounts are sufficient to meet the needs of
veterans participating in SAH. Further, we should consider what
can be done to improve awareness of this program for veterans
and contractors.
And, finally, Madam Chairwoman, we should consider whether
the VA can improve efficiency and reduce the bureaucratic
burdens on our veterans and their families.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Boozman. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.
Let me begin with a question for Mr. Catalde and thank you
for the great work that the National Association of Home
Builders does.
Many of your members from across the country I know are in
town this week. I had the pleasure of meeting with our
homebuilders from South Dakota yesterday. I know they are as
interested, as I am sure some of the other States are, in doing
what they can, as they are doing down in Yankton, South Dakota,
for a young servicemember coming back from rehabilitation in
California to have a new home constructed to help meet his
needs.
I will have a few questions for you, Mr. Gonsalves, about
some of your testimony and some of the obstacles that we have
seen there because he is still on active duty and we have made
some changes to accommodate them.
Mr. Catalde, could you elaborate on your recommendation
that the VA consider establishing local or regional panels of
approved remodelers or contractors?
Mr. Catalde. One of the discussions was that when you start
a project, there is no common ground to start. And each project
is analyzed on its own.
In California, we had this same issue with schools and what
we did is we standardized plans and we came up with
standardized plans and standardized builders that could do the
work.
The current process is a lengthy process of approval and if
you would check the number of counselors you have to service
this program, if I remember correctly, the number is 67
counselors that have actual jurisdiction over the work that is
being done. That is not ample, so there needs to be
standardization and you need to go to the private sector to get
help in this.
We have this designation which I talked to you about, CAPS,
and really it was a program to teach contractors to work with
the elderly, special needs there, handrail heights, different
issues that were in their homes.
A lot of those needs are the same that the vets have in
requirement. But as mentioned earlier, each one of those have
an impairment that requires a little something different, but
you can standardize this.
And if plans were standardized and used and your counselors
knew what was involved and had a resource of people preapproved
that they could say here is the grant. I would ask you to take
a look at the time applied for a grant until the project
starts. I do not have your records. I cannot look at that. But
I believe if you look from the application time until actual
physical work begins, you will find that is longer than the
project.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
So that I can ask all of my questions at once, I am going
to defer to the Ranking Member for questions he may have and to
Mr. Hall. Then I will come back, Mr. Gonsalves, to pursue a
line of questioning with you.
Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In followup, I guess if we had a list, who would determine
the qualifications?
Mr. Catalde. It depends. Each State has its own licensing
issue and the majority of the States have licensed contractors.
I would believe that if a State, not all of the States have
licenses, but if it is a licensed contractor and
recommendations--and this panel in California, we have a panel
that goes through the licensing, and there are recommendations
that go with that and these people are determined.
My company personally, we build assisted living facilities.
The learning curve to get in to go from a homebuilder to being
assisted living, we spent almost a year and a half in research
to figure out the needs of that. You need that type of
specialist in here.
So taking, for example, and we are not the only one, a
number of people that specialize in accessibility issues, which
are the biggest problem that we have. The need in California,
we have homes where we are required by law that if you have a
large subdivision that one-third of the homes can be
retrofitted. In other words, the cabinets are built specially
to be taken out. The appliances in the kitchen, the same type
of issues.
There are individuals you can go to. The State Licensing
Board would be one that would be approved in the specialist and
each of us carry a different designation. The remodelers carry
a separate designation from a homebuilder.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. You mentioned indexing. I think
both of you probably would be in favor of that. And you said
you use the CPI as your base. As a homebuilder, would that be
the appropriate index to use?
Mr. Catalde. Funny you would ask that question. I was with
Chairman Bernanke this morning and I was with the top 100
suppliers in the United States. There were 20 of us that were
there to meet with him to talk about what was happening, the
cost of material, petroleum materials exceeding CPI. And that
is all the plastics used. Copper, same thing. Copper is going
through the ceiling.
The CPI is a way to at least build a hedge into the system.
I do not expect that the petroleum products are going to
continue at the rate they have increased. Copper is a problem
and will be a problem, but plastics, more and more plastics are
being used in homes now.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Gonsalves, I am a little confused. If your
organization, if it donates to the vet at no cost does the vet
qualify for the grant program?
Mr. Gonsalves. Well, technically they do not because the
way the grant is written, it can be up to $50,000, but not more
than half the cost of the home to the veteran. So what we have
had to do is we have all our bills and anything that we have to
pay for actually gets written as an invoice to the veteran and
we pay these invoices on their behalf.
Mr. Boozman. I see. So that is how you get around it----
Mr. Gonsalves. Yes.
Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Which is good. Very good.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Gonsalves, there are a number of things in your
testimony. Let me ask this first. In your written statement,
you mentioned that in order for a qualifying veteran to receive
the full SAH grant, the veteran must show a cost of $100,000 in
home purchase or home adaptation cost.
Have you experienced incidents where the full SAH grant was
not awarded and where it was needed?
Mr. Gonsalves. Well, with the houses we have done so far,
we have not gotten all the way through the paperwork to receive
any of these grants yet. The only grants that have been applied
to any of the projects we do are if a veteran already owned
land and owed money on it or already owned a home and we came
in and retrofitted it.
For instance, we did a home in California for a
quadriplegic named Juan Beltran. We went in and made his home
accessible for him. He had already owned the home, had a
mortgage. I think it was about $340,000. So instead of taking
the $50,000 grant and applying it to the work that was done, we
had that money applied to pay down the mortgage.
Same thing if a veteran owns land and there is a mortgage
on the land. We will build the home and they will show what
they have paid for the land and we have the grant applied to
that mortgage so that they end up owing less money. Then from
there, everything we do is at no cost.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You also highlighted that the average
cost of building a fully specially adapted home is $336,000. Is
that a national average or a regional one?
Mr. Gonsalves. That is our national average based on the
homes that we have done. We have worked in about 18 States so
far. So we have taken the cost of the different homes that we
have done and that is the average that we are paying which is
just over 10 percent more than the median cost of a new home.
So it is a little bit more, but the homes that we do are
extremely specialized.
We go well beyond the recommendations of the VA. We work
with a lot of companies. We will put proximity readers for
front doors which sort of works like a mobile speed pass. Just
when you are within the proximity, if you have the little card
reader, it will unlock the door.
We work with a company called Toto that makes toilet seats
that are a bidet combination. It actually has a wand that comes
out. It does front, rear cleansing. It is heated. It dries. It
takes care of everything.
We go well beyond and try to look at what the veteran's
individual needs are. The book has a lot of great things, you
know. The requirements for ramps and the pitch that they are
at, that is all right on. There is a lot, but there is a lot
more that we can do.
I mean, when I first got a copy of this book, my first
thing was can't they get me a newer copy. I did not realize
this. I mean, the last time this was updated was April 1978.
Most of the men and women in Iraq were not born yet.
So there is a lot of new technology that can be put into
this is what I am saying. A lot of what we do did not exist
when this book was made.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I may verify and seek answers from
some of our other witnesses with regard to whether or not there
is not--so you are saying you tried to seek an updated copy and
the most recent copy that you were provided by the VA was----
Mr. Gonsalves. Well, I was just making comment that, you
know, a lot of what is in here is okay. It is based around
wheelchair accessibility. So what I had originally thought was
that there were newer copies than this because I saw that it
said 1978, but that is the last time that this had been
updated. And that is why I am talking about the sort of
technology that we do.
A lot of what these veterans need is not in this book and
this book really needs to be updated to reflect technologies
that can help people with the types of injuries, somebody like
James Fair who I mentioned that is blind in both eyes plus has
no hands. A lot of what is in here is not going to help him.
But there is a lot of new technology, a lot of it is just
in the past few years. And I think that is something that the
VA should look at as these things are coming out, how does this
translate into things that are going to help a lot of these
veterans.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Those are many good points that you
have made there. In terms of vision impairment, you have worked
with 18 disabled veterans, correct?
Mr. Gonsalves. Right.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Have all of them required these for
wheelchair?
Mr. Gonsalves. No. The first home we built was in my home
State for a soldier who lost both arms. We work with
quadriplegics, paraplegics. You know, some of them are blind.
Some are combinations of all of those things.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are you aware of any problems that
they have had if they do not require the use of a wheelchair in
getting the Specially Adapted Housing grant?
Mr. Gonsalves. No. I do not think not getting it, no.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ultimately. But have there been any
obstacles? Have there been any questions raised by anyone that
you are familiar with within the VA about disabled veterans who
are not required to use a wheelchair but are seeking a
Specially Adapted Housing grant?
Mr. Gonsalves. The first home that we built was for
Sergeant Peter Damon from Massachusetts. He lost one of his
arms above the elbow and one below the elbow. Initially,
because he still has an elbow on one side, they said that he
would only qualify for $10,000 worth, but it depends on
interpretation on some of this. So we had somebody else look at
his case and put it before and then they did say, yes, he will
qualify for the full $50,000.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Who was it that you had look at his
case more closely?
Mr. Gonsalves. We actually had somebody from Paralyzed
Veterans of America who early on became an advisor to me to
explain how these things work. And he said that was the
problem. It depends on who does it and how they interpret loss
and loss of use.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Hall, did you have any questions for the panel?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple.
Mr. Catalde, you had mentioned that the current VA grant
process is paperwork intensive and I was wondering if you can
give examples of this or recount any remodelers who became
discouraged from working with a veteran due to the paperwork
requirements.
Mr. Catalde. Before my testimony, I checked with the head
of the Remodeler Council which I appointed and asked him if he
had done any work on this. And he said yes. I said how did it
go. He said normally for him to draw a set of plans and get
them submitted and get everything approved in a city would take
him anywhere from 45 to 60 days. And it would take him about
two weeks to get the approval in the same magnitude of a
project as this one. He said that timeframe was six months with
the veteran.
And he said the problem he had, he just wanted to do the
work and, meanwhile, the veteran does not know the answer, does
not know if it is going to happen, and he said it was just
horrible for him. He said that he has talked to other members
of the council. There are 14,000 of them in total. And most of
them look at it as a business proposition and it is to break
even.
Mike told me personally he completed it. The grant was the
full $50,000 and he wrote a check for $8,500 of his own money.
And I said are you continuing to do it. He said yes. He says I
owe that to the country.
Mr. Hall. Well, God bless him and I hope there are more,
and I trust there are more, like him out there.
Mr. Gonsalves, are you aware of any costs you can tell us
about that are incurred by the veteran to complete the required
paperwork in applying for an SAH grant?
Mr. Gonsalves. Cost to the vet----
Mr. Hall. Right. The paperwork that we were just talking
about, does this cause the veteran to incur additional costs?
Mr. Gonsalves. I do not believe it is any additional cost
to them. I know the problem that we have had is because of
sometimes the amount of time it takes to get the approval. If
everything does not get submitted and worked through the VA
ahead of time, you cannot go back and get the grant after.
We actually have homes where we had builders and people
that just did not want to wait. And we got these homes built in
90 days and we will never see the grant to get any of the costs
on that. And it is just something that we were willing to do
and not worry about getting the $50,000 because we had the
people waiting to build the house.
And in some of these cases, one of the houses that we did
was in Philadelphia. The community stepped up so much that this
veteran got cable for life, Internet for life for free, laptop
computers, fully furnished, right down to food in the fridge
and new tooth brushes. People were just waiting to do this and
we could not wait.
So, unfortunately, sometimes we cannot even wait to start
the process just because we have people that will get these
houses done in a matter of a few months. So we just go ahead
and build them and not worry about it.
Mr. Hall. That is great. That is really great to hear and I
think that should lead the news tonight. I am happy to hear a
good story like that leading the news.
The last question I had was you mentioned redefining
specially adapted so that resources provided to adaptations
needed for today's servicemembers would be appropriate as
opposed to the needs of veterans of previous wars.
Can you provide us with any information on instances in
which unnecessary adaptations were built and resources could
have been better used?
Mr. Gonsalves. Well, we did a house in Springhill,
Louisiana, for a soldier named Kyle Berlison who was shot in
the cheek by a sniper and the bullet went through his spinal
cord. And he's a quadriplegic on a respirator. He has very
little head movement, just enough to move a toggle switch to
operate his wheelchair.
To be able to work through the VA grant in this one before
we came up with the ways where we got the invoices done to the
veterans, we had this veteran get a loan for $100,000, put it
into a bank account so that he could get the $50,000 grant.
The problem with it is before we could get the approval for
the grant, we had to show that we were putting the grab bars
and things in this house. There is no way that this soldier
will ever be able to use a grab bar.
What we did put in there is he has a tube next to the arm
that has the toggle to operate his wheelchair that he can blow
into and it will open and close doors. So we look at what is
really appropriate for the individual veteran.
I would be more than happy to have our organization work
with anyone in the VA to go through all the technology that we
are working with at CMU and the University of Pittsburgh. And
we have a lot of resources with those two universities and a
lot that we have done in the past and we could put a whole
checklist together that really matches adaptations to an
individual veteran's needs. And we would be more than happy to
work with you on that.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I guess in regard to that, if the work is actually done and
if you start making these significant modifications, you are
actually decreasing the value of the house more. In other
words, there is a limited market for these type of modified
houses, is there not?
I mean, if you are a realtor and you are trying to sell a
handicapped this and that, that is not like remodeling the
kitchen, you know. See what I am saying? Does that not actually
reduce the value of the house for the average buyer?
Mr. Catalde. That was my argument before the city of Los
Angeles invoked the 10 percent and then the 25 percent
requirement. And we now have the technology to build these
homes that when you walk in there and you look at that kitchen,
you cannot tell it is any different from any other kitchen. But
with the removal of approximately 20 screws, a changing of one
piece of appliance in the home, the bathroom, the accessibility
through that, that is not a real decrease in value.
The perception of the ramp at the front of the house in
most cases, that is wood. It can be put in and removed. Very
rarely are those permanent ramps poured in concrete.
But to answer your questions, if in that State, yes, but
the technology that we now have for cabinet companies, we
actually put the linoleum right under the cabinet so if the
cabinet is taken out, the linoleum is there in the bathroom or
the tile.
It exists today. It can be done that way very easily and
the only real setback to it is the ramp in front. And if it is
a temporary ramp with wood, that is it.
The other issue is that there is a lot of standards that as
homebuilders we are required to meet which are the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. So whether the veterans
may not have arms, we still are required to meet those
standards even though they are not needed. And those we have to
put in every home we build and we continue to do that.
But the technology has changed and I have not seen this
book, but it would not be a surprise to me to look over and see
that there is a manual sitting there that is older than our
veterans and that----
Mr. Boozman. And I think that is excellent that we are able
to do that with technology. I guess my point was that there is
really--one of the things that we worry about with grants and
things like that is making sure as far as fraud and things like
that--if you talk about things in a conventional way, if you
make these modifications in an effort to help somebody like we
want it done and the work is really done you are really not
increasing the value of the home. See what I am saying? And,
again, that to me is just a lessening of the fraud aspect of
it.
Very quickly, Mr. Gonsalves testified the fact that
$300,000 plus is the price for an average home. In Arkansas,
that would be a little bit steep. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Catalde. The State I am from is California.
Mr. Boozman. Nationally?
Mr. Catalde. And so an entry level house which I build in
California is about $500,000. I have some communities where we
build in northern California, upper-end communities, and to
pull a permit in that community, I have to walk in with a check
for $145,000 to pull a permit. So it does not apply.
Mr. Boozman. Well, I think Ms. Herseth Sandlin and I live
in different parts of the world. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Gonsalves, did you want to address any of the questions
of Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Gonsalves. Well, I think the same thing. I do not think
making a home handicapped accessible is really going to
decrease the value. Depending on the type of foundation it sits
on, you may not have a ramp. A ramp is probably the one thing
visually that you would notice.
But on the inside, other than, you know, if you have a
couple of grab bars or something, the homes we do end up really
beautiful. A lot of them, I never expected them to come out as
good as they did. You know, more often than not, we end up
putting granite countertops in these homes just because the
local granite countertop companies want to give them to us.
So most of what is done I do not think will really reduce
the cost too much. What you end up with is larger bathrooms,
wider doors, more open floor space which I think more often
than not is desirable.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just one followup question. The
$336,000 that you identified as being a national average for
the homes that you have done, how is the cost of materials
provided in kind calculated into that average?
Mr. Gonsalves. That is calculated in there. So that was
just like if nothing was donated and we pay it, that is what
the cost would be. We have corporate sponsors like Simonton
Windows that when we put an order for a home, we will get a
cost breakdown of what the cost of these windows would have
been. So that is how we figure these numbers out. And we are
pretty much right in line with the national average when we
figure it.
I think on some of them, we may have even been a little low
just because of the high quality of what we get, just because
people want to help. You know, people support the troops. We
are probably pretty evenly divided in this country about the
war, but I think people have realized supporting the troops, it
is not a left thing, it is not a right thing, it is the right
thing.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you both very much. I
thank you for accommodating the delay in the start of the
hearing. I apologize for that. We are trying to fit in quite a
bit this week in a number of other committees and there were
just uncertainties about the markup and the votes in another
committee. But I appreciate it.
I know you have other places that you need to get to this
afternoon to share the great work that you are doing with
others. I want to thank you for being here, for your testimony,
and thank you for the great work that you are doing on behalf
of our veterans who are a new generation of veterans who want
to be able to take advantage of new technologies that the
industry has incorporated. We need to be able to adapt to that
and the programs that we have jurisdiction over and working
with the officials at the VA to make it work as best as
possible. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gonsalves. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would now invite panel two to the
witness table. Joining us on the second panel of witnesses is
Mr. Carl Blake, National Legislative Director for the Paralyzed
Veterans of America; Mr. Brian Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director for the Disabled American Veterans; and
Mr. Thomas Zampieri, Director of Government Relations for the
Blinded Veterans Association. Your written statements will be
entered into the record as well.
Mr. Blake, we will go ahead and begin with your testimony.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; AND
THOMAS ZAMPIERI, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE
Mr. Blake. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on an issue that
is probably of the utmost importance to PVA and its membership.
Since its founding in 1946, PVA has advocated for the idea
that the disabled veteran should have the same access to and
use of his or her home as a nondisabled veteran.
PVA began lobbying Congress in 1947 for legislation that
would provide a Federal grant to make homes accessible. We
argued that paralyzed veterans were forced to remain in the
hospitals because their former homes could not accommodate
their wheelchairs.
In 1948, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 702. Under
this law, the VA, now the Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved $47 million for the construction of wheelchair-
accessible homes.
Through the years, the SAH grant has been adjusted in an
attempt to keep pace with the rising cost of home construction.
However, it has been done in a seemingly random fashion and
with no set timetable for periodic adjustments. As a result, it
has lagged behind the obvious rising cost of construction.
Public Law 108-183, passed in 2003, provided the last
adjustment to the SAH grant. At that time it was increased to
$50,000 from $48,000. Meanwhile, construction material costs
for single-family homes have significantly increased during
that time. In fact, according to the National Home Builders
Association, from 2002 to 2005, the average construction cost
increased from approximately $76.00 per square foot to more
than $90.00 per square foot, about a 20-percent increase.
Most, in fact nearly all, SAH grants are used for building
new homes because it is difficult to find an existing home that
can be made totally accessible and be done at a reasonable
cost. It is a simple fact that there are significant cost
savings by building accessibility into a new home rather than
modifying an existing home. It is estimated that new
construction is 10 to 15 percent less expensive than renovating
an existing structure for the same exact features.
Based on information from our architectural department, PVA
recommends that the grant be increased by 20 percent to
$60,000. PVA members are the highest users of this very
important grant. The grant allows veterans with severe service-
connected disabilities to realize the dream of owning their own
home when they otherwise may not have had the opportunity. PVA
also believes an equivalent increase in the grant for veterans
with service-connected blindness should be made from $10,000 to
$12,000.
Our architectural staff estimates that building a fully
accessible bathroom alone for the needs of a high-level spinal
cord injured veteran could cost anywhere from $30,000 to
$50,000. Making all other normal living areas in the home,
including the kitchen, the bedroom, and the living room, more
accessible would add significantly more cost.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Independent
Budget (IB), we also urge the Subcommittee to consider
legislation that would require the VA Secretary to establish a
residential home cost-of-construction index to be used
automatically to adjust the amount of these grants each year.
As the housing market has continued to boom, these grants
have not kept pace. Without an annual adjustment to the grants,
inflation will continue to erode their purchasing power.
PVA would also like to make an additional recommendation,
in accordance with the policy contained in the IB for fiscal
year 2008. Like the needs of other families today, veterans'
housing needs tend to change with time and new circumstances.
An initial home may become too small when the family grows or
become too large when children leave home. Changes in the
nature of a veteran's disability may necessitate a home
configured differently and changes in special adaptations may
be needed.
These things merit a second grant to cover the costs of
adaptations to a new home. We hope that the Subcommittee will
consider this additional benefit as it seeks changes or
improvements to the Specially Adapted Housing grant.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, PVA
would once again like to thank you both for the focus you have
put on this issue. Ms. Herseth Sandlin, we particularly
appreciate your strong advocacy to make these needed changes to
the SAH grant, and we hope that your Committee will
expeditiously consider your legislation, H.R. 675.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 32.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Blake.
Mr. Lawrence, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to present the views
of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on this Specially
Adaptive Housing program. On behalf of our 1.3 million members,
I express our appreciation for this opportunity.
Madam Chair, before I cover the DAV's recommendations, I
want to convey the sincere thanks of our members for your
continuing efforts to provide for the special needs of severely
disabled veterans and their families. Throughout your tenure on
the Committee, you focused on this important issue and it is
noted and appreciated.
Specially adapted homes are considerably more expensive
than conventional homes. However, while building costs have
risen, the grant has remained relatively flat. The last
increase in 2003 was not adequate to keep pace with rising
costs.
The original $10,000 grant was established in 1948.
According to the Consumer Price Index, what cost $10,000 in
1948 would cost more than $87,000 today. Therefore, the current
maximum amount holds just over half the market value of the
original grant.
The DAV has a longstanding resolution calling for a
realistic increase and an automatic annual adjustment based on
the cost of living. As such, the DAV fully supports the
legislation you introduced, Madam Chair, H.R. 675, the
``Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act,'' which
would increase the $50,000 grant to $60,000 and increase the
$10,000 grant to $12,000. And the bill would provide for
automatic annual adjustments. We hope that the proposals
contained in this bill will be approved by the Subcommittee.
Public Law 108-454 authorized VA to provide grants of up to
$10,000 to disabled veterans residing temporarily in the home
of a family member. The DAV supported this provision. However,
we recommended that the amount used should be added to the
overall amount to which a veteran is entitled.
In most instances, severely disabled veterans residing with
a family member will eventually seek to establish their own
permanent residences. In such instances, the maximum amount
should be available to the veteran regardless of previous
grants.
Likewise, the DAV supports H.R. 1315 which you also
introduced to provide Specially Adaptive Housing grants to
disabled members of the Armed Forces residing in the home of a
family member. We recommend that such grants be added to the
overall amount available for later use.
Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my
statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions you
might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence appears on p. 33.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Zampieri, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI
Mr. Zampieri. Madam Chairwoman and members of the House
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, the
Blinded Veterans Association appreciates being able to testify
today and having our views heard on this important issue.
We agree with the other Veteran Service Organizations that
this is an area that is necessary to look at and have changes
made in order to meet the needs of the wounded servicemembers
returning and also for the older veterans who from previous
wars have had major catastrophic types of injuries.
Our interest in this especially is that, you know, in
talking to our Field Service Program Director this morning, I
asked a simple question. In the 11 years that you have been our
Field Service Program Director, how many blinded, service-
connected, permanently blind veterans have been eligible for
the $50,000 current grant? And he said I know of four, because
if you are not an amputee or if you do not have other
associated injuries, then usually you end up being considered
only qualified for the Special Home Adaptation grant of the
$10,000 which also, though, says that blindness is defined in
both eyes as 5/200 vision acuity or less.
And so we have some concerns because when you look at the
traumatic brain injuries who have, as Congressman Boozman is
interested in, I hear, a lot of severe visual complications,
but they are not going to meet 5/200 and, yet, comparing those
individuals to my situation where I would not meet this
requirement either, they would benefit from the grant if there
was a legal definition of blindness.
In other words, a Social Security recipient is entitled to
be considered legally blind with 20/200 vision or less or 20
degrees or less of loss of peripheral vision, whereas a veteran
has to meet a higher standard of blindness in order to qualify
for the grant.
In fact, what we have found historically is most of our
members only apply for the Home Improvement and Structural
Alteration grants, the HISA grant, which is only $4,100, and
that comes out of the VHA side. And for a nonservice-connected
veteran, the HISA grant is $1,200. Again, it is a different pot
of money, but Blinded Veterans Association wanted to draw that
to the attention of the Committee recognizing that we are
focused today on the Specially Adaptive Housing grants and the
$50,000 and the $10,000.
We are fully supportive of H.R. 675 and the increases that
bill would allow for veterans. We would like to ask that the
Committee consider the issue of traumatic brain injuries.
And also we were supportive of Senator Cornyn's bill in the
Senate in regard to severe burns also being considered in view
of the grants.
So I again appreciate the ability to be invited to testify
this afternoon and appreciate this, and will be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zampieri appears on p. 34.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much for your
insightful testimony. I think Mr. Boozman and I and Mr. Hall
and all members of the Subcommittee are very interested in
considering traumatic brain injury and the disabilities, the
complex nature of the disabilities, that our servicemembers are
facing.
I had mentioned at the outset that we have a young man from
South Dakota who is still on active duty, so there is this
additional wrinkle, and he suffered a traumatic brain injury
and has been getting his rehabilitation in California. When his
wife and mother initially applied for a Specially Adapted
Housing grant, they were told that he probably would only get
the $10,000 unless they made sure that there was some way that
he was required to use a wheelchair.
There are problems other than vision impairment. There are
severe problems that he is trying to overcome with his physical
therapy, and his occupational therapy. The fact that they were
warned by someone prior to applying that, to get the $50,000 he
has to need a wheelchair, this really raises a lot of
interesting issues for us to consider as we look at modifying
these grant programs to meet the needs of today's veterans and
the types of injuries that they are sustaining.
I do have a question for all of you just to start us out
here because we are going to have votes called within the next
ten minutes.
Mr. Gonsalves on the first panel had a pamphlet with him,
the VA pamphlet 26-13, that he states was last updated in April
1978. Could each of the three of you respond to your
familiarity with this pamphlet and whether or not you are aware
of a more recent update?
Mr. Blake. Well, Madam Chairwoman, I would say first that I
am not the expert on that particular pamphlet, but PVA as an
organization has an entire department devoted to architecture,
principally accessible design and universal design, and our
architects are as familiar as maybe anyone in the entire
architecture community when it comes to any type of
accessibility, to include VA pamphlet 26-13.
When I actually asked this question of our Director of
Architecture about the fact that the pamphlet was last updated
in April 1978, that is a fact. There is no update that I am
aware of, and the VA maybe can speak to that, but I am not
aware of it. She was not aware of it.
There are certainly probably some need for updates as it
relates to newer technologies and things like that, but I want
to kind of respond to the suggestion that with that pamphlet
there is a sort of rigidity with the SAH grant and kind of draw
on my own experience.
I do not think it is as rigid maybe as it is laid out to
be. I think there is some level of discretion throughout the
process as a veteran applies for the SAH grant and then makes
use of that grant once they become eligible.
I would certainly say that we usually recommend that we
point veterans who have the severest disability, particularly
with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), in the direction of our service
officers because they know the ins and outs of all of the
benefits that the most severely disabled veterans would be
eligible for to include this and know how to work their way
around what the guidelines are in pamphlet 26-13 and how to
best assist the veteran to meet those requirements and still
address some of their specialized needs that may fall outside
of the boundaries of what are really, in my mind, minimum
requirements when it comes to accessibility. That is the long
answer.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. I do not have anything I could add to what
Carl said.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you agree with him that it does not
seem to be in your experience as rigid as perhaps was
described, although we are all acknowledging until we have a
chance to pose the question to our next witness, that as far as
you are aware, there has not been an update of the pamphlet
since 1978?
Mr. Lawrence. No. As far as I know, there has not been an
update.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Zampieri. I am not aware of anything new. And just as
the previous panel said, I am concerned about where we are
headed here with the new technologies. And part of that gets
more complicated, too, because a lot of the prosthetic devices
that are developed for the blind are incorporated into the, you
know, virtual homes now and it gets real complex.
The Intrepid Center in San Antonio, Texas, by the way, is
already exploring the virtual new home. And so even though they
have only been open since the end of January, one of the things
they are already doing from I guess a research standpoint down
in San Antonio at the new Intrepid Center working with the
Brooke Army Medical Center and VA in San Antonio is the virtual
home. And that should scare everybody because it is like having
everything computerized, you know, the different things in the
home.
So, you know, technology is great and it allows people to
live independently and it is going to be a challenge, and I am
not being critical of the VA, to keep up with this because our
major goal is to keep people living as independently as
possible and be able to hopefully have them at home and be able
to get them into employment so that, you know, the worst case
scenario is these individuals could easily end up in a nursing
home.
And the cost for a one-year hospitalization in a nursing
home in the United States is no secret. It is about $45,000 a
year if one of these young, traumatic brain injured, blind
servicemember's only alternative is the family puts them in a
nursing home. That is what the cost will be for that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you to all of you.
Mr. Boozman, do you have questions? I think we have enough
time.
Mr. Boozman. Just very briefly. I really do not have a
question.
I just want to thank you all for your advocacy. And, again,
I think what was just said about the importance of helping
these individuals become employed and being productive members
of society which they desperately want. Keeping them out of
institutions is certainly what we all want, and you all do a
tremendous job of advocating and helping us do that.
In regard to the vision question, whether it is from
traumatic brain injury or for whatever reason, as an
optometrist, my brother is an ophthalmologist, being part of a
very large clinic, we worked with this type of thing all the
time in the sense of trying to help determine amount of
disability for various entities.
And the way that we are doing it in the VA there is no
other way with any of those entities, and I agree with you
totally. It is something we have to clean up. There is not a
very rational basis behind it.
And, again, that is something that I agree with you about
and we really are working hard to try and get that fixed. So
thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. I would just like to associate myself with the
remarks of the Ranking Member and the Chair of the Committee
and thank you for your testimony. I do not have any questions.
Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me thank you for your statements
in support of the bills that I have introduced and your
suggestion
that we take a look at the grant that would be provided under
H.R. 1315 for adaptations to a family member's home added to
the overall amount. We will certainly take that into
consideration. I think I understand the basis for which you are
making that recommendation.
This is an area where I do have a special interest as I
know you have just heard from Mr. Boozman that he does too. We
want to do all that we can update where we are. I think that we
have heard about the need to find some balance in terms of
helping meet some basic needs for independent living that will
include incorporating some new technologies.
Perhaps, as Mr. Zampieri has described, just how focused at
this stage we are going to be on that given the costs
associated with, as I think Mr. Gonsalves clearly described, a
$336,000 home, as Mr. Boozman said in Arkansas and South Dakota
will be living in the nicest, and we want nice, suitable homes
for our veterans, but we also have to recognize that there are
going to be some regional differences. We are not just looking
at the need for the veteran to have a manner in which to live
independently to avoid the cost for long-term care, and I share
your concern that some of our traumatic brain injured soldiers
who have not been getting the kind of longer term physical
therapy that they deserve have already found themselves
unfortunately in that environment, but also the market value of
the home, the investment and the equity that the veteran has in
that home.
I thank you again for your comments, your testimony, the
expertise and insight that you have offered. We will look
forward to working with you more on the bills that have already
been introduced, others that may be introduced in the future,
and take your advice and counsel into consideration.
We do have two pending votes, so we will break and come
back for our final panel which includes our one witness who we
look forward to hearing from in light of the testimony we have
received from the first two panels today. I anticipate we will
be back sometime right around five o'clock. Hopefully we will
be able to resume.
Okay? Mr. Boozman, does that sound good to you? All right.
Very good.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We would now invite our witness for
panel three to the witness table. Participating in our third
panel is Mr. Keith Pedigo, Director of Loan Guaranty Service
for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
We welcome you back to the Subcommittee. Again, as I
mentioned, thank you for accommodating the schedules here
today. We appreciate it and we look forward to your testimony.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO, DIRECTOR, LOAN GUARANTY SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Mr. Pedigo. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here this
afternoon.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss VA's Specially Adaptive Housing program.
In my testimony, I would like to highlight VA's commitment
to meeting the housing needs of our Nation's most seriously
disabled veterans.
The VA home loan program serves a clientele that is diverse
in many ways. The only common denominator of this clientele is
service in the Armed Forces of the Nation.
Specially Adapted Housing grants for severely disabled
veterans are among the most important benefits that the Loan
Guaranty program provides. Veterans who have certain service-
connected disabilities may be entitled to a grant from VA for
the purpose of constructing an adapted home or modifying an
existing home to meet the veteran's needs.
The goal of the grant program is to provide a barrier-free
living environment which affords the veteran a level of
independent living that he or she may not otherwise enjoy.
Since the inception of this program in 1948, VA has provided
approximately 34,000 grants totaling $650 million. There are
three types of grants administered by the Loan Guaranty program
which are available to assist severely disabled veterans in
adapting housing to meet their special needs.
The most commonly used of these grants is the Specially
Adapted Housing grant. This grant is typically used to create a
wheelchair accessible home and is currently limited to $50,000.
Next there is a Special Home Adaptations grant which is
generally used to assist veterans with mobility throughout
their homes. This grant is currently limited to $10,000.
The third grant is the Temporary Residence grant which is
available to eligible veterans temporarily residing in a home
owned by a family member. Under this program, veterans eligible
for a Specially Adapted Housing grant would be permitted to use
up to $14,000 and veterans eligible for the Special Housing
Adaptations grant would be permitted to use up to $2,000 of the
maximum grant amounts.
As a result of Public Law 109-233, eligible veterans or
servicemembers may receive up to three Specially Adapted
Housing grants. Prior to enactment of this law, veterans were
limited to using the grants one time.
In order to ensure that all living prior grant recipients
were aware of this new opportunity, VA mailed out approximately
16,000 letters to these veterans in December of 2006 informing
them of the change to the law. The response has been dramatic.
VA field offices have received over 4,200 requests for
subsequent use grants as of May 2007.
To put this into perspective, over the past ten years, VA
averaged receiving about 1,000 grant applications per year.
This clearly is a substantial increase in volume and VA is
prepared to devote the necessary staffing resources to ensure
that these veterans receive timely grant processing.
I would like to briefly talk about eligibility for housing
grants. First, the Specially Adapted Housing grant is available
to veterans who have a service-connected disability entitling
them to compensation for permanent and total disability due to
the loss or loss of use of both lower extremities or blindness
in both eyes, having only light perception, plus the loss or
loss of use of one lower extremity, or the loss or loss of use
of one lower extremity together with residuals of organic
disease or injury, or, finally, the loss or loss of use of both
arms at or above the elbow.
The Special Home Adaptations grant is available to veterans
who have a service-connected disability entitling them to
compensation for permanent and total disability due to
blindness in both eyes with 5/200 visual acuity or less or the
anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands or extremities
below the elbow.
Madam Chairwoman, you asked for our views regarding the
sufficiency of grant amounts. The last grant increase provided
by Congress was in 2003, at which time the Specially Adapted
Housing grant was increased from $48,000 to $50,000.
Since 2003, 98 percent of grant recipients used the entire
amount available. Of those who did not use the entire amount,
the average use was over $49,000. As these numbers show, most
grant recipients are utilizing the full amount permitted under
the current statutory limitations.
In 2003, VA conducted a survey of grant recipients. The
purpose of this survey was to help determine whether and how
well we were meeting the needs of these veterans. Ninety-two
percent of grant recipients indicated that they were satisfied
or very satisfied with the overall grant program.
We are currently conducting another customer satisfaction
survey to determine how we have improved in our grant delivery
methods and timeliness. We hope to have the results from the
survey by the end of this fiscal year. We intend to use the
feedback to further improve the grant process.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look forward to
answering your questions or those of the members of the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 43.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much. You did say that
the survey, that you expect to get the results of the survey
later this year? Is that what you testified to?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes. We are expecting to have those results by
the end of this fiscal year, so by September 30th of this year.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Can you elaborate for just a moment on
the breadth of the survey? How many questions are in the survey
and do they go beyond just the level of satisfaction and get in
more depth?
Mr. Pedigo. Yeah. I do not recall the exact number of
questions, but it is a fairly lengthy survey. We are attempting
to elicit feedback on all aspects of the grant process.
We are dividing the universe into two groups. One would be
those who have used the grant within the last year. The other
would be a group of veterans who have been determined eligible
for the grant based on their disability, but have not actually
applied for the grant.
The reason we are including that second group is that we do
have a pretty large number of veterans who have eligibility,
but have never used the grant. So we want to find out why so
that we can perhaps adjust some aspect of our program to
accommodate them.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. What type of outreach does the VA do
to inform potential applicants and their families that the
grants exist?
Mr. Pedigo. There are briefings for servicemembers. When
they get out of the military service, there is a transition
assistance briefing and then there is a special briefing for
those who are disabled, called the disabled transition
assistance briefing. That is frequently where veterans first
learn that the Specially Adapted Housing grant is available.
In addition to that, we have VA staff stationed at Walter
Reed and Bethesda and they meet with all the incoming patients.
That is their opportunity to discuss the various benefits
available to that veteran, including the Specially Adapted
Housing grant.
When a veteran applies for disability compensation, the
process requires our Compensation and Pension Service staff at
VA to automatically address whether or not they qualify for the
grant even though they may not have applied for the grant.
If, in the process of determining the level of disability,
it is determined that that veteran is eligible for the grant,
then the Loan Guaranty Division, which administers the grant
program, is notified and we then make contact with that veteran
to begin the grant process.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. So there are a few layers in
which they would learn of the availability of the grant. I am
interested in the fact that you determine eligibility.
The loan service agency is notified and then when you say
you make contact, is that by letter? Is that by phone call? How
is that contact made and do you have assurance out of each of
your offices that those contacts are not only attempted to be
made, but that the contact is ultimately made?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes. We follow up very closely on that. And
there is a very specific requirement that within 30 days of
receiving notification from the Veteran Service Center, which
processes the disability claims, that we must call the veteran
or make contact in some other way and set up a personal
interview.
Our approach is to go to the veteran's house in every case
where it is feasible and sit down and have an in-depth
discussion with the veteran about the benefits and requirements
attendant to the Specially Adapted Housing program.
At that interview, if the veteran indicates that he or she
desires to go forward with the grant, then we begin the process
of formally processing that veteran's request.
If the veteran indicates that he or she is not ready to use
the grant, then we tell the veteran that we will be following
up with them periodically. And we do have a requirement, for
those who have chosen not to use the grant after the interview,
we must contact them periodically and ask them if they are now
ready to use the grant.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
You mentioned that the last survey was in 2003. Can you
give us an idea of the numbers, the increase, now that we are
in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared from 2003 to 2007. Can you
give us an idea number-wise what are the demands on your
service?
Mr. Pedigo. Are you asking about whether there has been an
increase in the number of grants?
Mr. Boozman. Well, I would think that there has been an
increase in the number of people wanting grants just based on
the fact that we have a lot of injured service people coming
back now.
I guess what I am trying to do is figure out what kind of
impact that has had on your ability working hard to get these
things done. Has the lag time increased a lot in the last three
or four years compared to how it was or do you have the
resources that you need to get these things done in a timely
way?
Mr. Pedigo. In the last four to five years, we have seen an
increase in the number of applications for grants. And up until
fiscal year 2005, we were seeing an increase in the actual
number of grants made. In fiscal year 2006, that fell off a
little bit. It fell from about 530 down to the high 400s. So
there was a slight decrease and we are not sure why that took
place.
However, with the addition of the Public Law 109-233
authority to provide multiple grants to recipients, we now
definitely have a dramatic increase in workload. We have
received more than 4,200 requests for subsequent use of the
grant since we sent that letter out in December of 2006.
We have an assurance from our operations staff that the
necessary resources to handle that additional work will be
available. And so, at the present time, we do not have any
serious concerns about being able to handle the additional
workload in a timely manner.
Mr. Boozman. As these things come through, is there any
priority to them? For instance, does a new person that is
inquiring versus somebody that is already in the system, is
there any prioritization to these at all?
Mr. Pedigo. We are now giving some priority treatment to
the seriously wounded from Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.
In the grant program, we are contacting them within 24 to
48 hours after receiving notice that they are eligible for the
grant in order to get the process started. For veterans who
were not in that conflict, we are still processing their grants
in the same fashion.
Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you very much. I would add just a
couple things.
As we heard testimony earlier, the fact that we have the
vision, based on a very dramatic decrease in vision compared to
the standard that is used. And then also not figuring in field
loss and things like that can tremendously affect your--you can
have 20/20 vision, but if the most that you can see is a patch
three inches wide, then you are blind probably more so than
somebody that had 20/200 vision. So, again, I hope we can work
with you again on trying to get some of those things cleaned
up.
The other thing I would like to do is congratulate Ms.
Herseth Sandlin for really championing this cause. This is
something that is very important. And like so many other
things, we are just finding that there is some little things
that, again, in trying to be helpful to the agency, we need to
tweak and get this thing even more effective than it is now.
Thank you.
Mr. Pedigo. Yes, sir. And thank you for your support.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I want to thank Mr. Boozman for his
comments. I know he may have to leave to catch a flight, but he
may have some more questions so we will keep the record open.
I did want to pursue a couple of points. Is it true that
Congress made a change in 2003 as it related to active-duty
servicemembers being eligible to access the grants; is that not
correct?
Mr. Pedigo. That is correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Can you assure the Subcommittee that
any glitches have been worked through there because we have had
a recent example that I am aware of and it leads me to think
that there may be other examples? But, again, the pool of these
individuals is relatively small.
Given the increase in the workload that you described, I
just want to make sure that any materials that are shared among
the counselors and the different offices around the country
that everyone is clear now that Congress made this change and
that they are eligible because we had a little bit of a glitch
for a family that I represent that initially, when they went to
apply, were told you need the VA disability rating before we
can do this.
They explained that her husband, her son was still on
active duty and that this congressional change had been made
and there was some miscommunication, misunderstanding, or at
least a need for clarification in the St. Paul office that I am
aware of. I just hope that all of the offices now are very
clear that active-duty servicemembers are eligible to apply for
the grants and do not need the VA disability rating to do so.
Mr. Pedigo. Well, as I understand, they must be rated
eligible for the benefit. In other words, they must meet the
statutory criteria for either the $50,000 grant or the $10,000
grant. And that decision has to be made before we can proceed
with the processing of the grant.
So even though it is a servicemember, that individual still
has to meet the basic eligibility qualifications.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Does the basic eligibility
qualification include a disability rating from the VA because
they cannot get that until they are discharged?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, I understand that there are processes in
place where they can actually get a quick rating, a memorandum
rating.
I am not familiar with this case. I would be very happy to
look into it. In fact, I would like to look into it because it
troubles me that somebody who might have been eligible was
initially told they were not. Maybe we do need to communicate
this three-year-old requirement better, to those who do the
eligibility ratings in the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA).
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would appreciate the opportunity to
share some of the details of this case with you. They have
ultimately gotten approved, but it was an arduous process. This
family has already been through an awful lot with the
Department of Defense, with the VA, and it is a traumatic brain
injured soldier.
We will follow up and we will talk with you more about the
step-by-step process that they underwent so that there is
either a need for clarification on your end or the information
that has been given to the families where we need to clarify
some things, so that everyone understands what the eligibility
requirements are and that everyone is fully updated on the
changes that were made to the law.
In terms of the traumatic brain injured soldiers and Mr.
Zampieri's testimony, could you respond, and Mr. Boozman
touched on it as well, but the $50,000 grant versus the $10,000
grant. I think Mr. Gonsalves indicated as well that they worked
with someone from PVA, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, to go
back to the counselor and there is a different interpretation?
In terms of continuity of interpretation, if someone is
initially denied or told, no, you are only eligible for the
$10,000 grant, and he was describing the individual who is an
amputee of both arms, one above the elbow, one below. What kind
of guidance have you issued since Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom about the types of injuries that we
are seeing that might help clarify to the counselors to ensure
a more consistent interpretation of the eligibility
requirements?
Mr. Pedigo. I think it might be useful if I could briefly
explain how we are set up at VA, and I hope this does not sound
too much like an explanation of a stovepipe operation.
But the Loan Guaranty program, of which I am Director, is
responsible for processing the Specially Adapted Housing grant.
We get involved once the eligibility determination is made by
the Veteran Service Center, which is a separate element of the
Veterans Benefits Administration.
This is the part of the Veterans Benefits Administration
that looks at all disability requests from veterans and then
rates the disabilities and makes the eligibility determination
as to the level of disability. If it rises to the level where,
based on the statutory criteria, they believe that this veteran
is eligible for the Specially Adapted Housing grant, they
indicate that in their rating decision and hand that rating
decision to our Loan Guaranty Division where the Specially
Adapted Housing grant process then begins.
In listening to the explanation of the veteran who had lost
both arms, one below the elbow and one above the elbow, it does
not surprise me because, when you get into rating disabilities,
sometimes there is a very fine line between what would meet the
statutory requirement for a grant and what would not.
We have a lot of areas in the Disability Compensation
program where judgment decisions have to be made. There are
approximately 9,000 employees who are involved in making these
decisions and it is sometimes very difficult to achieve a very
high level of consistency even though that is our goal.
We spent a lot of time training these employees to make
sure that they view things the same way, but sometimes due to
the nature of the injury or perhaps due to the ability of the
employee, we do not always achieve that. And I think that may
have been the problem in the case that was discussed earlier.
But, yes, we have a very active training program to make
sure that all of our staff are familiar with the requirements
and that they apply those in a consistent manner.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me ask a few questions with regard
to the fact that we have multiple grants now. The total
aggregate dollar value that a veteran can receive is how much?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, currently, it is $50,000 for the
Specially Adapted Housing grant and $10,000 for the Special
Home Adaptations. And that was in the law that was passed in
2003 when it went from $48,000 to $50,000.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right. But if they can use up to three
grants, I am looking for the total aggregate amount.
Mr. Pedigo. The aggregate is $50,000 for the large grant.
So let us take an example of a veteran who used it--let us take
somebody in 1948 because we do have some veterans who used it
in 1948 who are still living.
The maximum then was $10,000, so they could have used
$10,000 in 1948, which means they would be able to come back
and use the difference between $10,000 and $50,000 or $40,000.
And, the same would apply with the $10,000 grant. They would
have the difference between what they previously used and what
the current statutory maximum is.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Can you remind me because I know
in your statement, you had mentioned that 98 percent of grant
recipients use the full amount available, the $50,000? How many
of those are using three different grants versus how many are
using it all up in the initial grant?
Mr. Pedigo. I think I can safely say that all of the
veterans who were in that universe that I mentioned only used
it one time because the multiple use did not go into effect
until last June. All of those veterans that I mentioned in the
98 percent group only used it one time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You acknowledge that there has been an
increase in your workload, but can you describe for me again
how we are going to assure that you are going to get the
resources necessary to meet the demands of the increased
workload and the commensurate training that is going to be
associated with that?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes. I have already had several discussions
with the Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations
who controls staffing in our field offices. I have indicated to
him that we do have a dramatically increasing workload. He
acknowledged that and assured me that whatever staffing we
needed to handle this increased workload would be made
available.
With respect to the training, last summer we had a one-week
training session in St. Louis for approximately 70 Specially
Adapted Housing agents. This was a nuts and bolts training
session where we went over all the requirements for the
program, the goal being to make sure that everybody understands
those requirements in the same way.
We have periodic conference calls with our field offices.
In fact, each quarter, we have a conference call where on
occasion Specially Adapted Housing issues are discussed.
Within the next month, we will be putting out a complete
revision to our Specially Adapted Housing Handbook and this
will provide updated guidance presented in a reader-focused-
writing format so that there will be no question as to what
that policy is.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. And then just a final question
or two on the timetable here. I know Mr. Catalde in the first
panel, you may have heard him ask us to try to get data that
looked at the time of the application for the Specially Adapted
Housing grant to when construction on the project actually
began.
I do not know if you track that data. If you do, that would
be helpful to see that. But what is the normal wait time for
the processing of each grant?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, it is divided into pieces. You have the
eligibility determination which I talked about earlier. And
that process can take anywhere from a few weeks to six to eight
months because of the complexities involved in getting all the
medical information necessary, getting the medical examination
for the veteran, and then making the decision.
Then, when it is handed off to the Loan Guaranty program
for the processing of the grant, we have a period of time where
we have to meet with the veteran, arrange for the veteran to
provide the plans and specifications for the home that he or
she wants to build or remodel.
Once we receive those plans and specifications, we have to
have them approved. That segment of the process could take
anywhere from two to four months.
And so then the final phase would be from the point where
we approve the project to the point where we actually disburse
the money and the project is completed. And that phase on
average takes about eight months.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. From approval to disbursement to
completion?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Another eight months?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes. But let me further explain that. This is
not all VA time. In fact, most of this is non-VA time. It
involves a contractor sometimes building a home from the ground
up. In other cases, the substantial remodeling of an existing
home. So for anyone who has ever built a home or even remodeled
a home, they know that that process can be very, very lengthy
and it is not always a smooth process.
I know it sounds like an exceptionally long period of time
to accomplish the completion of the grant, but when you look at
all the complexities that are built into the process just by
the nature of what is being done, I believe that you can see
that for the most part the time is not excessive.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Does the survey that you have recently
sent out include any questions with regard to the level of
satisfaction as it relates to the timeliness of the process
itself?
Mr. Pedigo. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. If you will share those with the
Subcommittee as soon as you receive those in September, we
would appreciate it.
Mr. Pedigo. We certainly will.
[Executive summaries of the survey appear on p. 57.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Finally, on the Temporary Residence
Adaptation grant, as you know, that is expected to terminate
June 15, 2011. Do you have any thoughts that you might be
willing to share at this point whether or not you think that it
should be extended beyond 2011 given your experience and the
utility of that grant for the veterans who have applied?
Mr. Pedigo. Well, first, let me address the utility. We
have had probably fewer than five of these grants since
implementation. So we do not have a lot of experience to go on.
I think the concept of a Temporary Residence grant is good
and I think that it is good regardless of whether we are in a
period of war. So at this point, I would say that it should
probably be extended beyond 2011.
The way it is presently configured, there would be no cost
factor because they are simply going on the entitlement that
they would have, either $50,000 or $10,000. So I do not think
there would be any PAYGO issues if it were to be extended
beyond 2011.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much. There may be
another question or two that I would be submitting to you as
well as other members of the Subcommittee as we keep the record
open. I appreciate again your patience accommodating the
schedule and the information you have provided.
I will, with my office and Subcommittee staff, be directly
following up with you with regard to the particular case that I
referenced earlier just to see if, even though it is somewhat
unique because it is an active-duty servicemember, it may be
helpful as we have others who are returning that may have
suffered these traumatic brain injuries that are similarly in
this limbo between their discharge from active duty and just
work through any glitches that might still remain.
I appreciate your willingness to work with me on that.
Mr. Pedigo. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thank you and everyone for their
statements this afternoon. We value the interest that people
have in the topic, the expertise that they bring to bear, and
we will look forward to following up on the testimony that was
presented today.
So with that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
With the increasing number of disabled veterans returning home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for specially adaptive housing has
become more important. Every year we have more veterans returning home
with severe injuries, making it difficult for them to make an easy
physical transition back home. Our intent in this hearing is to examine
the VA's Specially Adaptive Housing program, explore the problems that
our Nation's veterans face and see what can be done to alleviate these
problems.
As some of you may know, I have introduced legislation that will
hopefully address some of the needs of our returning brave men and
women of the armed forces. I believe that this legislation will be a
critical component in assisting these disabled veterans and
servicemembers, and expand the resources available to give them a level
of independent living they may not normally enjoy.
H.R. 1315 would provide specially adaptive housing
assistance to disabled servicemembers residing temporarily in housing
owned by a family member. This assistance, allowable up to $14,000, may
be used to adapt the family member's home to meet the veteran's special
needs at that time.
H.R. 675, the Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Act
would increase the amount of assistance available to disabled veterans
for specially adaptive housing grants. Increase the maximum amount from
the current $50,000 to $60,000.
In my home State of South Dakota, I have had interactions with
wounded and disabled veterans seeking ways to ease the physical
transition from hospitals with disabled access to their current
residences. One of my constituents, who was injured during military
operations in Iraq and remains on active duty, has faced difficulty
securing adaptive housing grants because he is not yet incorporated
into the VA system. In addition to difficulties he has faced because of
his active duty status, he, as well as many other injured
servicemembers not yet enrolled in the VA, could potentially benefit
from changes I have proposed in H.R. 1315.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and Members
of this Subcommittee to ensure that our most critically wounded
servicemembers are provided both proper healthcare to help them recover
from their injures, but also adequate benefits to modify their homes to
achieve independence and comfort when they return home.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman,
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon. The Specially Adapted Housing grant program is
relatively small and not as well-known as programs such as the GI Bill.
But it is vitally important to those who qualify for the program,
whether as a result of combat or the effects of diseases such as
diabetes. That is why I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this
hearing.
I also thank our witnesses in advance for their testimonies on this
important program. I note that the Chairwoman has a bill, H.R. 675 to
increase the maximum grant amounts, and would like to ask her to add me
to the list of cosponsors.
Legislation affecting veterans' programs, including those designed
to help our seriously disabled veterans, must comply with the budget
rules on mandatory funding. I hope Mr. Pedigo can give us an estimate
of the PAYGO costs for that bill in case we can identify some offsets
down the line and I will work with the Chairwoman to find whatever
offsets are needed to pass her bill.
Again, thanks to all and I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses.
Prepared Statement of Carl Blake,
National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I would
like to thank you for holding this hearing on an issue of such great
importance to PVA and its membership. Since its founding in 1946, PVA
has advocated for the idea that a disabled veteran should have the same
access to and use of his or her home as a nondisabled veteran.
In 1946, a group of veterans that would eventually become the New
York Chapter of PVA requested help from the American Institute of
Architects (AIA) to design housing for paralyzed veterans. Six
volunteer architects completed preliminary blueprints calling for
special bathrooms, bedrooms, work, and exercise rooms and provided
construction details for doorways, corridors, windows, closets, and
garages. Requests for these new accessible home plans came from all
over the country.
The following year, PVA lobbied Congress for new legislation that
would provide a federal grant to make homes accessible. We argued that
paralyzed veterans were forced to remain in hospitals because their
former homes could not accommodate wheelchairs. In 1948, the U.S.
Congress passed Public Law 702 (P.L. 702). Under this law, the Veterans
Administration--now the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)--approved
$47 million for the construction of wheelchair-accessible homes.
Through the years, the grant has been adjusted in an attempt to
keep pace with the rising cost of home construction. However, it has
been done in a seemingly random fashion, with no set timetable for
periodic adjustments. As a result, it has lagged behind the cost of
construction. Because adjustments to the grant are dependent on
legislation from Congress to make the change, construction costs and
inflation have rapidly outpaced this process.
Public Law 108-183, passed in 2003, provided the last adjustment to
the Specially Adapted Housing grant for eligible severely disabled
veterans. At that time it was increased to $50,000 from $48,000.
Meanwhile, construction material costs for single-family homes have
significantly increased during that time. According to the National
Home Builders Association, from 2002 to 2005, the average construction
cost increased from approximately $76 per square foot to more than $90
per square foot.
Most, in fact nearly all, Specially Adapted Housing grants are used
for building new homes because it is difficult to find an existing home
that can be made totally accessible, and be done at a reasonable cost.
It is a simple fact that there are significant cost savings by building
accessibility into a new home rather than modifying an existing home.
It is estimated that new construction is 10 to 15 percent less
expensive than renovating an existing structure for the same features.
When designing a new home, there is little or no cost difference
between adding 36 inch doors for accessibility as opposed to the
standard 30 inch doors. However, if a veteran chooses to remodel an
existing home with standard doors and add 36 inch doors, it costs a
great deal of money because new framing and structural changes must be
made.
A large bathroom and kitchen for maneuverability is just the
beginning for accessibility. In order to meet the VA requirements for
the Specially Adapted Housing grant, the home must have two accessible
entryways with sidewalks that are flat. The interior doors must be a
minimum of 36 inches wide and hallways must be a minimum of 48 inches
wide. Also, along with obvious usable accessibility features, the
bathroom walls must be reinforced for grab bars. All of this
information is contained within the VA's design guideline--VA Pamphlet
26-13. Although it was published in 1978, those guidelines remain
relevant, even today. In fact, the VA's guidelines tend to be more
stringent than the Federal Fair Housing accessibility guidelines.
Based on information from our architectural department, PVA
recommends that the grant be increased by 20 percent to $60,000. Our
architectural staff estimates that building a fully accessible bathroom
alone for the needs of a high-level spinal cord injured veteran could
cost anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000. Making all other normal living
areas in the home--kitchen, bedroom, living room--more accessible would
add significantly more cost.
PVA members are the highest users of this very important grant.
This grant allows veterans with severe service-connected disabilities
to realize the dream of owning their own home when they otherwise may
not have had the opportunity. PVA also believes an equivalent increase
in the grant for veterans with service-connected blindness should be
made from $10,000 to $12,000.
In accordance with the recommendations of The Independent Budget,
we also urge this Subcommittee to consider legislation that would
require the VA Secretary to establish a residential home cost-of-
construction index to be used to automatically adjust the amount of
these grants each year. As the housing market has continued to boom,
these grants have not kept pace. Without an annual adjustment to the
grants, inflation will continue to erode their purchasing power.
In recent years, a number of improvements have been made to the
Specially Adapted Housing grant to allow for easier access to the
benefit by both eligible service-connected disabled veterans and active
duty servicemembers who will become eligible. PVA is particularly
pleased that access to the grant was improved so that an active duty
servicemember awaiting discharge from the military can obtain the
grant, at the determination of the Secretary, so that he or she can
begin planning the purchase of a new, accessible home even before he or
she leaves the hospital.
P.L. 109-233, the ``Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits
Improvement Act of 2006'' allowed disabled veterans who are residing
with a family member to receive a grant up to $14,000 to modify the
family member's home for accessibility needs. PVA believes that this
option should be extended to severely disabled servicemembers who are
still on active duty awaiting discharge from the military. A similar
provision already exists for the full SAH grant, as mentioned
previously.
I have personally experienced the difficulty created by this
particular situation. After incurring a spinal cord injury while on
active duty, I conducted rehabilitation at the VA medical center in
Richmond. My wife and I were not immediately able to find a place to
live due to our changed financial situation, so we lived with my
parents for a couple of months. So that I could gain access to their
house while using a wheelchair, we paid to have a ramp installed and
have a bathroom modified for my needs. This proved to be a substantial
cost, particularly with regards to making improvements to the existing
bathroom. Many young men and women could benefit from this adaptive
housing assistance.
PVA would like this Subcommittee to consider legislation similar to
S. 1096, the ``Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement Act.'' This bill
would allow for specially adapted housing assistance for disabled
veterans with severe burns. Severe burns are one of the signature
wounds of the Iraq war. Living with this condition after being
discharged from a hospital could require a precise temperature control
system in a home, along with an air filtration system. A water
purification system may also be required. All of these modifications
take time and are very costly. This bill will give the servicemember
financial assistance to allow them to make these critically needed
modifications.
PVA would also like to make an additional recommendation, in
accordance with the policy contained in The Independent Budget for FY
2008. Like the needs of other families today, veterans' housing needs
tend to change with time and new circumstances. An initial home may
become too small when the family grows or become too large when
children leave home. Changes in the nature of a veteran's disability
may necessitate a home configured differently and changes in the
special adaptations. These things merit a second grant to cover the
costs of adaptations to a new home. We hope that the Subcommittee will
consider this additional benefit as it seeks changes or improvements to
the Specially Adapted Housing grant.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, PVA would
once again like to thank you for the focus you have placed on this
issue. Ms. Herseth Sandlin, we particularly appreciate your strong
advocacy to make these needed changes to the Specially Adapted Housing
grant, and we hope that your Subcommittee will expeditiously consider
your legislation, H.R. 675, as its provisions would further improve
this benefit that is critically important to the most severely disabled
veterans.
Thank you again. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
Prepared Statement of Brian E. Lawrence,
Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
the Specially Adapted Housing program.
Section 2101(a) of title 38, United States Code, authorizes the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide assistance in the form
of a Specially Adapted Housing grant to veterans who have incurred
service-connected disabilities consisting of loss or loss of use of
both lower extremities, total blindness together with loss or loss of
use of one lower extremity, or loss or loss of use of one lower
extremity together with either the loss or loss of use of an upper
extremity or other organic disease that requires use of a wheelchair or
the use of braces, crutches, or canes. The purpose of this grant is to
enable severely disabled veterans to construct, purchase, or remodel
homes with structural features to accommodate special needs. Section
2102 of title 38, United States Code, limits the amounts VA may provide
to such veterans. Currently, VA may approve a grant of not more than 50
percent of the cost of building, buying or remodeling adapting homes or
paying indebtedness on those homes already acquired, up to a maximum of
$50,000. VA may approve a grant for the actual cost, up to a maximum of
$10,000, for adaptations to a veteran's residence that are determined
by VA to be reasonably necessary. The grant also may be used to help
veterans acquire a residence that already has adaptations for the
veteran's disability.
The grant was last increased by Public Law 108-183, enacted
December 16, 2003. Because the cost of construction has risen over the
past four and one-half years, the current $50,000 maximum amount is
insufficient to allow severely disabled veterans to make all necessary
adaptations and modifications. During the most recent DAV National
Convention, our members voted to again adopt a longstanding resolution
calling for legislation which would provide a realistic increase in the
Specially Adapted Housing grants, and would provide for automatic
annual adjustments based on increases in the cost of living. Our
resolution coincides with the recommendations of The Independent Budget
(IB), which is a budget and policy document that sets forth the
collective views of the DAV, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
Madame Chair, the DAV fully supports the legislation you
introduced, H.R. 675 the Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement
Act, which would increase the $50,000 grant to $60,000, and increase
the $10,000 grant to $12,000. Additionally, the bill would provide for
automatic annual adjustments based on the national average increase in
the cost of residential home construction. We urge that the proposals
contained in H.R. 675 be favorably acted upon by the Subcommittee.
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, the DAV appreciates
the opportunity to present our views on these bills. We look forward to
our continued work with the Subcommittee to serve our Nation's disabled
veterans and their families.
Prepared Statement of Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D.,
Director of Government Relations, Blinded Veterans Association
INTRODUCTION
Madame Chairwoman and members of the House Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of the Blinded Veterans
Association (BVA), thank you for this opportunity to present BVA's
legislative concerns on the topic of Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Specially Adaptive Housing programs. BVA is the only
congressionally chartered Veterans Service Organization exclusively
dedicated to serving the needs of our Nation's blinded veterans and
their families. BVA has concerns over the lack of improvement, in
recent years, of the Veteran Benefits Administration's ability to
provide the adaptive housing programs necessary to meet the needs of
disabled veterans seeking such resources. With the growing numbers of
wounded in both Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) who are entering the VA healthcare and benefits system
today, and with the issue of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) also of
paramount concern to our members, BVA appreciates this hearing as a
significant step as we work together to improve the system.
As of May 22 of this year, just two weeks ago, there were 25,549
traumatic combat injuries, of which 7,267 required air medical
evacuation from Iraq. What has not been as widely reported is that
another 6,991 personnel injured in nonhostile action have also been
evacuated from OIF and OEF operations. Such numbers reflect the
probability that an ever increasing number of future veterans will
depend on adaptive housing grants in order to live independently in
their own homes. More than 1,880 of the total TBI-injured have
sustained moderate enough injuries that they are experiencing
neurosensory complications. Epidemiological TBI studies find that about
30 percent have associated visual disorders of diplopia, convergence
disorder, photophobia, ocular-motor dysfunction, and an inability to
interpret print. Some TBIs result in legal blindness and other
manifestations known as Post-Trauma Vision Syndrome (PTVS). Like other
generations of disabled veterans who have desired to continue living in
their own homes, the current generation of OIF and OEF veterans
deserves the same opportunity. It is therefore important that economic
adjustments be made to the current system to keep pace with
inflationary costs of construction labor and materials. If disabled
veterans are not able to make adaptive changes to their homes, they run
the risk of falls and injuries that result in expensive emergency room
visits and costly hospital admissions.
BVA would like to stress again to this Committee that data compiled
between March 2003 and April 2005 found that 16 percent of all
causalities evacuated from Iraq were due directly to eye injuries.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center has surgically treated approximately
700 soldiers with moderate to severe visual injuries while the National
Naval Medical Center has a list of 450 individuals with eye injuries
requiring surgery. VA reports that 46 such servicemembers have attended
one of the ten VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers (BRCs), 89 are enrolled
in local VA Blind Visual Impairment Service Teams (VISTs), and others
are in the process of being referred. It should be very obvious to
members of this Committee that a new generation of blinded or visually
impaired low vision veterans will require lifetime specialized programs
to meet their needs. Such rehabilitation programs must be very
individualized for such veterans and their family members, as has been
the case for an older generation of veterans who have recently suffered
from age-related degenerative blindness.
CURRENT SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING SERVICES
Home Improvements and Structural Alterations (HISA). VA currently
has Specially Adapted Housing grant programs to assist disabled
veterans in the construction of an adapted home or the modification of
an existing home. The program goal is for veterans to live
independently in a safe environment. For those with service-connected
blindness, the current grant amount is $4,100. For the nonservice-
connected blinded veterans, the amount is $1,200. These amounts have
not changed in more than a decade. Such grants can be used for any home
improvement that is necessary for the continuation of treatment or
rehabilitation. It can also be utilized for disability access to the
home and essential lavatory/sanitary facilities. A HISA grant is
available to veterans who have received a VA medical determination that
improvements and structural alternations are necessary or appropriate
for successful, cost-effective treatment of their disability. For
example, legally blinded veterans frequently require additional
lighting for maximum utilization of their remaining vision.
Specially Adapted Housing (SAH). The SAH grant, currently limited
to $50,000 annually, is used to assist veterans with mobility
throughout their homes. It can be used for minor construction projects.
Eligible are service-connected veterans with a permanent and total
disability due to one of the following:
The total loss, or loss of use, of both lower extremities
as to preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes,
or a wheelchair.
Blindness in both eyes (having only light perception),
plus a loss or loss of use of one lower extremity.
The total loss, or loss of use, of one lower extremity
together with (1) residuals of organic disease or injury, or (2) the
loss, or loss of use, of one upper extremity which so affects the
functions of balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion without
the aid of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair.
The loss, or loss of use, of both upper extremities such
as to preclude use of arms at or above the elbow.
Special Home Adaptation Grant (SHA). BVA's experience has been that
very few blinded veterans meet the above criteria to obtain the SAH
grant. The Special Home Adaptation (SHA) grant, on the other hand,
helps service-connected veterans with specific mobility problems within
the home. The SHA grant is for $10,000. The disability must be
permanent and total due to:
Blindness in both eyes with a 5/200 visual acuity or
less, or
Anatomical loss or loss of both hands and extremities
below the elbow.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
BVA supports the Independent Budget recommendations that Congress
increase Specially Adapted Housing grants and provide for future
automatic annual adjustments indexed to the rise in the cost of living.
BVA supports H.R. 675, the ``Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing
Improvement Act.'' The bill would increase an SAH grant from the
current $50,000 to $60,000 and would change the SHA grant from $10,000
to $12,000. BVA requests that a HISA grant for service-connected
veterans be increased from $4,100 to $5,400 and that the same grant for
nonservice-connected be raised from $1,200 to $2,400.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, BVA
expresses thanks to both of you for this opportunity to present our
testimony for the record. We are concerned that injured veterans and
their family members from OIF and OEF operations, as well as those from
previous conflict eras, are not currently able to access the updated
adaptive housing services necessary to live in their own homes once
they have successfully completed the appropriate rehabilitation
programs. This lack of access will continue unless changes are soon
made. The future strength of our Nation depends on the willingness of
young men and women to serve in our military. This willingness depends,
in turn and at least in part, on the willingness of our government to
meet its full obligation to them as veterans. Waiting will only
increase the problems and expenses associated with this growing policy
problem.
Prepared Statement of Brian Catalde, President,
National Association of Home Builders, and President and
Chief Operating Officer, Paragon Communities, El Segundo, California
Introduction
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of the
more than 235,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB), thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the
important subject of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Specially Adaptive Housing program. My name is Brian Catalde. I am a
homebuilder from El Segundo, California and NAHB's 2007 President.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing to bring focus to the
VA's Specially Adaptive Housing program and to explore ways this
program can be expanded or improved to better serve the thousands of
severely injured veterans whose homes must be modified in ways that
will allow them to live independently.
Background
The VA's Specially Adaptive Housing (SAH) program provides vital
assistance for construction or remodeling of an accessible home for
those veterans who live with serious service-connected disabilities.
Since the beginning of the SAH program in 1948, over 34,000
veterans have used their eligibility resulting in distribution of grant
funds totaling over $650 million to either build new homes or adapt
existing homes. The program has taken on additional significance
recently as a way to help veterans who have suffered serious injuries
as a result of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the SAH grants
are available to serve all veterans who qualify.
Grants are provided to veterans who require the use of prostheses,
braces, crutches or a wheelchair to ambulate. Generally, if a veteran
is determined to be 100 percent permanently disabled through his or her
service and requires a wheelchair, VA can provide SAH grant assistance
to make a home wheelchair-accessible. The amount of the grant may be up
to 50 percent of the total cost of adapting housing to accommodate that
disability, with a current maximum of $50,000. If the veteran is
purchasing an adapted home, a VA-guaranteed loan can be used to fund
the remaining cost of the home.
Once VA determines that a veteran is eligible for a grant based on
the nature and extent of the disability, VA field staff work closely
with the veteran and the contractor to resolve impediments of existing
features and architecture and to redesign the home for wheelchair
accessibility. In many cases, the veteran desires to design and
construct a new home or build a substantial addition to an existing
home to accommodate his or her special needs.
In addition, a second grant program provides adaptations of up to
$10,000 for veterans who are blind in both eyes or have suffered the
loss, or loss of use, of both hands. This grant can pay for
improvements that would help resolve issues of home mobility.
The flexibilities added by the Veterans Housing Opportunity and
Benefits Act of 2006, which was enacted as Public Law 109-233 on June
15, 2006, went a long way to help the SAH program provide much-needed
funds for veterans who otherwise would likely not be able to live
independently. I thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking
Member Boozman for championing the expansion of the Specially Adaptive
Housing program in the House of Representatives.
Among other things, Public Law 109-233 authorizes a portion of the
SAH grants to be used to make changes to the home of a family member
where a veteran temporarily resides. The law also increases the SAH
program's flexibility by authorizing the VA to make up to three grants,
the total of which may not exceed the overall grant ceiling.
From our conversations with VA staff, we understand that these
changes have successfully reopened the SAH program for use by veterans
who used the program during a time when only one grant disbursement
could be made and the amount of that grant was limited by previous
versions of the authorizing statutes. I am sure this benefit is much
appreciated by older veterans who need to make additional changes to
their homes.
NAHB Remodeler Members Can Help Meet the Need
The leadership and staff of NAHB Remodelers, a council within NAHB
representing more than 14,000 members, has been spreading the word
about the ways the Specially Adaptive Housing program can be used to
help meet the needs of severely disabled veterans to improve their
living conditions and to help them live independently. In fact, many
NAHB Remodeler members have already applied their skills to put the SAH
grants to good use.
One of NAHB Remodelers' designation programs, the Certified Aging
In Place Specialist (CAPS), was created to equip remodelers with the
specialized knowledge needed to meet the requirements of aging
homeowners who want to remain in their homes as long as possible and
those with accessibility needs. The CAPS designation demonstrates these
remodelers' commitment to excellence and sets them apart from others in
the vast home renovation industry. The skills gained through CAPS
training are much the same as those which can help remodelers meet the
accessibility needs of SAH grant recipients.
NAHB is working with VA's leadership to encourage each of the VA's
Specially Adapted Housing counselors throughout the Nation to take the
CAPS certification training. If they avail themselves of this training,
I believe that each counselor will have a greater appreciation of ways
to use SAH grants to most effectively meet veterans' needs.
Some Additional Changes Are Needed
The Veterans Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006 did much
to improve the Specially Adaptive Housing program, however, some
additional changes should be made to improve the program's
effectiveness.
Increase the Grant Limits
The grant ceilings of $50,000 and $10,000 for section 2101(a) and
section 2101(b), respectively, provide needed assistance for funding
the improvements that must be made to veterans' homes, but often are
not sufficient to cover the full cost of remodeling. These ceilings
would typically cover the cost of remodeling kitchens and/or bathrooms
to make these spaces accessible, however, they fall short of funding
the changes that must be made to other areas of veterans' homes to meet
the VA's requirements, such as two points of entry and egress, an
accessible electrical panel, and so forth. While the VA's accessibility
requirements are quite reasonable, the grant ceiling is too low to meet
the costs of other extensive changes that must be made to enable
veterans to live independently in their homes. A further testament to
the need for higher grant limits is the fact that 98 percent of those
eligible use the full grant authority. I would also suggest that the
grant ceilings be doubled from the present levels and that these higher
limits be linked to a common measure of inflation, such as the Consumer
Price Index, as a way of keeping this program's limits relevant as
costs increase over time.
Authorize Full Use of Grants for Veterans Who Live with Relatives
Under the Veterans Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006,
only one grant can be used for Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA),
which pays for changes to the residence of a family member with whom a
veteran is temporarily residing. The TRA portion of these grants are
limited to $14,000 and $2,000 for section 2101(a) and section 2101(b)
disabilities, respectively, and this provision is scheduled to sunset
after June 15, 2011. After the changes have been made to a relative's
home, many veterans may find that they will not be able to live
independently, which may mean that further changes would need to be
made to the relative's home. To accommodate these veterans, the full
use of grants should be authorized for veterans who need to live with
relatives for an extended period. Furthermore, Congress should remove
the sunset provision without debate.
Compile a Roster of Approved Contractors
It is in the best interest of the veteran and the VA that the
highest quality, most appropriate and most cost effective work be
performed on every job. The most professional, skilled remodelers are
always in demand and often have the option of taking on additional
work. Accordingly, I recommend that the VA consider the establishment
of local or regional panels of approved remodeler/contractors based on
these contractors' qualifications, track records of satisfactorily
completing jobs similar to those to be undertaken, trade references,
and industry credentials.
Review VA's Paperwork Requirements
There is no question that it is in the best interests of the
veteran, the VA, and the American taxpayers that the grants are spent
wisely and that the work that is performed meets the veterans' needs.
In some ways, however, the VA's current processes are very paperwork
intensive and may be out-of-step with industry business practices. I
would not want some of the VA's requirements to discourage remodelers
from working with veterans who are eligible for SAH grants. I look
forward to facilitating meetings of the VA leadership with NAHB's
Remodelers to work through the details of possible ways to streamline
processes in the Specially Adaptive Housing program.
Conclusion
In closing, Madame Chairwoman, I want to reiterate NAHB's support
for America's veterans and for VA's Specially Adaptive Housing program.
I look forward to working with you, Ranking Member Boozman, the
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, and
leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs to make an already
vital program work even better. I would welcome any questions you may
have.
Prepared Statement of John Gonsalves,
President and Founder, Homes for Our Troops
Chairwoman Sandlin and members of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today about the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant provided
by the Veterans Administration.
As the President and Founder of the nonprofit organization ``Homes
for Our Troops,'' my organization and I provide specially adapted homes
to our most severely injured veterans returning from the War on Terror.
To date, we have provided specially adapted homes for 18 servicemen and
their families, and we are in the process of providing specially
adapted homes to 20 more, with our waiting list growing daily.
The services we provide are done at no cost to the veterans we
serve, and the majority of the services provided thus far have been in
the form of a newly constructed, specially adapted homes.
Who We Serve
The veterans we serve are among the most severely injured in the
War on Terror. Their injuries include amputations, paralysis, spinal
cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, blindness, and those with
severe burns. Many have more than one of those injuries. More often
than not, they are young, with young families who previously
lived in military or rented housing that was not adapted to meet their c
urrent needs.
Once separated from the service, the service person and his/her
family are often left with substandard housing options that put a
tremendous burden on the veteran's recovery and his or her family. This
burden can be too much for most families, and at this fragile time in
their lives the veteran's recovery can deteriorate, and his or her
family can break apart.
The events that lead to these situations are unacceptable, and the
burden that is felt by these veterans and their families should be
shared by the American people and our government.
The SAH grant provides a valuable service to our servicemen and
women. However, the value of that service is diminishing in the face of
economic changes. Also, with medical advances on the battlefield and
technological advances in the housing industry, the ``Specially
Adapted'' portion of the grant title needs to be revisited to ensure
that the true potential of ``Specially Adapted'' is realized.
The Changes We Would Recommend
As discussed more fully below, we respectfully recommend the
following changes to the SAH grant.
1. Increase the amount of the grant to reflect higher home prices.
2. Remove the 50% requirement.
3. Redefine ``special'' adaptations and allow flexibility based on
specific injuries.
4. Allow cost incurred on behalf of the veteran to qualify for the
SAH grant.
Diminishing Value of the SAH Grant
Perhaps the best way to describe the greatest impact to the SAH
grant's ability to help our severely injured veterans is to summarize
the diminishing value that the grant contributes to the construction of
a new home since the end of the Vietnam War.
Up until 30 years ago, the SAH grant was equal to 50% to almost 70%
of the average new home sale price. A grant for 50% of the home cost,
combined with the relatively low cost of homes in the 1970's, made a
substantial difference in the ability of disabled servicemen and women
to obtain a home suited to their disabilities.
However, since the late 1970's the SAH grant has simply not kept
pace with the increasing price of homes. Page 3 provides historical
information on the SAH grant and new home prices back to 1969, and
shows that the grant as a percentage of new home prices has decreased
from a high of 69% in 1974 to just 17% in 2006.
The average new home price has increased about 6% per year over the
last 30 years while the grant has increased only 2% per year. If the
$50,000 SAH grant had grown at the same rate as home prices, the grant
would now be $145,000, which would equal about 50% of the cost of a new
home in 2006.
Inadequacy of the $50,000 Limit of the SAH Grant
The cost of building a new home averaged $302,000 in 2006. The
homes needed by these veterans are more expensive than the average
because they require adaptations and specialized construction that
increases the cost as compared to a ``basic'' home.
Page 4 provides information on costs incurred by Homes for Our
Troops to build new homes and to buy and adapt existing homes, along
with the cost for an adaptation to a home already owned by the veteran.
We have averaged about $336,000 for the cost of building new homes
that are fully specially adapted based on the veteran's injuries and
disabilities. The cost for homes we have purchased and adapted have
averaged somewhat less due to the fact that two of the three families
happened to live in relatively low-cost areas of the country.
Limiting the grant to $50,000 means that, on average, these young
men and women will need to borrow $280,000 to purchase a home that
accommodates the handicaps caused by their severe injuries. Few, if
any, can qualify for a loan that size, and so they end up living with
family members, in apartments that are inappropriate for their
condition, in transitional housing and, in the worst cases, on the
street.
We find that to be unacceptable given the physical, emotional and
financial suffering that the veteran and his or her family has already
experienced.
Homes for Our Troops
Historical Comparison
Specially Adapted Housing vs. Average New Home Sales Prices
This table takes each year there was a change in the SAH grant and
compares it to the average new home sales price for that year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average New Home Grant as % of Grant % Home Price %
Year SAH Grant Price Home Increase Increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1969 12,000 25,000 48% -- --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1972 18,000 28,000 64% 50% 12%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1974 25,000 36,000 69% 39% 29%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 30,000 63,000 48% 20% 75%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981 33,000 82,000 40% 10% 30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 35,000 98,000 36% 6% 20%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 38,000 140,000 27% 9% 43%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 43,000 180,000 24% 13% 29%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 48,000 207,000 23% 12% 15%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 50,000 240,000 21% 4% 16%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 50,000 302,000 17% 0% 26%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Home Price data was derived from U.S. Census Bureau historical reports.
% Increase from 1969 to 2006:
SAH Grant
317%
Home Price
1108%
The SAH grant would need to be increased from $50,000 to $145,000
to maintain the same ratio of grant amount vs. home price that existed
in 1969. It would need to increase to nearly $200,000 to meet the 1974
high of 69%.
Homes for Our Troops
Building Costs for Specially Adaptive Homes
Homes Built from the Ground Up
(See Note 1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Western
Connecticut Louisiana Massachusetts Montana Penn- Penn- Average
sylvania sylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor & 71,000 272,000 83,000 94,000 13,000 161,000 116,000
Materials--
Purchased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor & 165,000 62,000 168,000 154,000 227,000 48,000 137,000
Materials--
Donated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Labor and Materials 236,000 334,000 251,000 248,000 240,000 209,000 253,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land (purchased by HFOT or vet) 100,000 50,000 200,000 36,000 62,000 50,000 83,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost 336,000 384,000 451,000 284,000 302,000 259,000 336,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The cost for labor and materials at each home varies based on required home size, specific adaptations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homes Purchased and Adapted Home Owned by
------------------------------------------------- Veteran and
Adapted by HFOT
Georgia (see North Virginia Average ------------------
Note 2) Carolina California
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor & Materials-- Purchased 4,000 25,000 17,000 15,000 39,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor & Materials-- Donated 31,000 75,000 64,000 57,000 15,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Labor and Materials 35,000 100,000 81,000 72,000 54,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchased Existing Home 151,000 76,000 370,000 199,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost 186,000 176,000 451,000 271,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: This home was already partially handicap-accessible for a wheelchair-bound person, so the cost for
modifications was less than the other homes.
Reconsidering the 50% Cap
A disheartening aspect of the SAH grant that should be changed is
the requirement that the award of the grant is limited to 50% of the
cost incurred by the veteran. Simply put, in order for a qualifying
veteran to receive the full $50,000 SAH grant, the veteran must show a
cost to of $100,000 in home purchase price or home adaptation costs.
It should be noted that $100,000 can do little these days to obtain
and/or modify a home to meet the requirements of the SAH grant.
However, in the extremely unusual case that a qualified veteran is able
to obtain or adapt a home to meet the requirements of the SAH grant for
under $100,000, it is concerning to think that we as a Nation would
only reimburse 50% of those costs to that veteran. It would seem more
appropriate that these veterans should not have to incur a cost since
the price they have already paid as a result of their life-altering
injuries cannot be measured in dollars.
Redefining ``Cost to the Veteran''
The SAH grant ``cost to the veteran'' requirement has caused the
hindrance of communities, NGOs and family members to provide housing to
``their veteran(s)'' at no cost to those veterans.
As the American public realizes the importance of supporting our
servicemen and women, efforts by organizations like Homes for Our
Troops, local communities and family members of severely injured
veterans have been hindered in applying the SAH grant to the cost of
specially adapted home building projects because, technically speaking,
the veteran did not incur any cost.
The requirement that, in order to qualify for the SAH grant there
must be a ``cost to the veteran,'' should be removed or at least
modified to allow for costs to be incurred by other entities on behalf
of the veteran. A simple change like this would free up resources and
encourage NGOs, communities and family members to help those veterans
needing Specially Adapted Housing.
If Homes for Our Troops were able to get the full value of the SAH
grant applied to the 20 homes we presently have underway, that would
reduce our cost for those homes by $1,000,000 and allow us to take many
more families off of our waiting list.
Redefining ``Specially Adapted''
Many of us have heard and read about the unfortunate battlefield
effectiveness of Improvised Explosive Devices and snipers, and the
devastating injuries they inflict on our servicemen and women. We have
also read how these sources of injury, coupled with improved medical
care on the battlefield, have resulted in greater survivability of our
most severely injured combat veterans. Servicemen and women with
injuries that would have killed them in previous wars are now living to
see another day, and are in need of truly ``special'' home adaptations.
The SAH grant, in its present form, is primarily focused on the
home adaptations needed for wheelchair accessibility. Wheelchair
accessibility is very important for our veterans. However, the
uniqueness and severity of certain injuries requires that some
adaptations, currently dictated as mandatory, become more flexible and
occasionally omitted from the requirements in lieu of other more modern
and appropriate adaptations specifically chosen for the actual needs of
the individual veteran.
For example, the SAH grant currently dictates specifications that
mandate grab bars, countertop heights and depths, electrical outlet
placements, door handle requirements and several other adaptations that
benefit wheelchair bound individuals with upper body control, but
provide no benefit to a quadriplegic or to a blinded, upper bilateral
amputee.
A more preferable alternative to this would be to allow flexibility
in what adaptations are required so that, in lieu of spending money on
unnecessary grab bars for a quadriplegic, that money could be spent on
providing a larger living space for ease of movement, or perhaps motion
or voice activated adaptations to improve the veteran's quality of
life.
In its present form, I believe that the ``Specially Adapted''
Housing grant does not provide enough flexibility in the field to allow
for these homes to be truly ``Specially Adapted.''
The general guidelines for the required and recommended adaptations
needed to award the SAH grant are spelled out in VA Pamphlet 26-13,
which was last updated in April 1978. Along with not having been
updated in 29 years (which is before many of the men and women being
injured in this current war were even born), the pamphlet does appear
to offer flexibility in the choices of adaptations by using the word
``should'' in many of its recommendations. However, SAH field agents,
whether by direction or personal interpretation, are often mandating
adaptations that are listed as ``should,'' thereby diverting financial
resources from needed adaptations to unneeded adaptations.
Examples of Truly ``Special'' Adaptations in Two of Our Home Projects
U.S. Army Specialist Russell ``Kyle'' Burleson was only 22 when he
was shot in the left cheek by a sniper during a firefight in 2004 in
Iraq while serving as a top gunner on a HMMWV. Kyle was left a C-2
quadriplegic on a ventilator and confined to an 800 pound wheelchair
and the need of a hydraulic lift to lift Kyle out of his chair and his
bed. Upon release from the Army and the hospital, Kyle, his wife
Kristy, and their two young children had no place to move to except
Kyle's mother's 120-year-old, 900-square-foot house.
The house was small and because of its size, Kyle, Kristy and their
two children lived in one room that used to be his mother's living
room. Because of the size of Kyle's wheelchair, Kyle was confined to
that one room and could not move to other rooms in the house. And
because of the size of the hospital bed, the size of the wheelchair,
and the size of the other equipment like the hydraulic lift and the
ventilator, Kyle could not move his chair at all, except to wheel out
the double-doors they installed, that lead to the front porch of the
house and a wheelchair ramp.
Living conditions were very tough for this young family that had
already sacrificed so much, and because of these conditions, conducting
some of Kyle's recommended therapies and exercises became too much of a
burden, and Kyle's health deteriorated.
To say that this situation is unacceptable is a significant
understatement.
Kyle and Kristy could not afford to build their own home, nor was
the SAH grant a sufficient monetary contribution to their financial
resources to allow them to build a home specially adapted to meet his
many needs. The family lived in those conditions until we recently
finished a home for them in November 2006. Although we conformed to
unneeded adaptations like grab bars, fixture placements and countertop
heights, we also focused on other special adaptations necessary for
Kyle's situation.
Because Kyle is confined to a large wheelchair and on a respirator,
and because he lives in a rural area of Louisiana where tornadoes,
hurricanes and severe weather often occur and result in power loss, we
also adapted his house with those concerns in mind.
To meet those concerns:
1. A back-up generator was installed, so that Kyle's ventilator
would continue to function during extended power outages.
2. The walls of the house and the walls of the master bedroom were
constructed of insulated concrete forms to provide a safe haven and a
bunker for his family during a tornado or hurricane.
3. Simonton Windows, one of our corporate sponsors, donated their
Stormbreaker Plus, shatter-proof storm resistant windows to protect the
family from flying debris.
4. Knowing that a majority of Kyle's time would be spent in his
house and basically become ``his world,'' we constructed a large open
floor plan for ease of movement and greater freedom.
Had we not constructed a home for Kyle and his family, they would
still be living in the same conditions, a thought that we find
intolerable.
U.S. Army Specialist James Fair was severely injured in 2003 in
Iraq while serving with the 1st Infantry Division. Although James'
memory is not clear of the event, it is believed that James was
severely injured while diffusing an IED that he came across while
setting up a barbed wire perimeter. The explosion took James' hands
(just below his elbows), severely injured his right leg, caused a
traumatic brain injury and left James completely blind in both eyes.
To put James' injuries into perspective, James had to be repeatedly
told that he had lost his hands because phantom pains made him believe
that he still had his hands, and his blindness prevented him from
seeing that his hands were, in fact, gone.
The combination of James' injuries has left him unable to live on
his own, and in need of 24-hour care from his mother and stepfather,
who rent a small house with no special adaptations. Because of James'
living conditions, the lack of home adaptations and the family's
inability to afford to purchase a specially adapted home, James has
spent the last few years sitting on his couch, hoping to someday
overcome his challenges.
His injuries provide very unique challenges from a home adaptation
standpoint because the combination of blindness without hands has
proven to be a monumental challenge to overcome.
Because James has no hands, he cannot use tactile feeling to orient
himself like most blind people do. Prosthetic arms do not work for
James because he cannot see where the tip of the prosthetics are, or
feel what they are coming in contact with.
Although the SAH grant will assist James with wheelchair
accessibility, there are many other equally important adaptations that
James will need. Some of the adaptations we are planning on
implementing into James' home should, in our opinion, take precedence
over some of the SAH grant requirements. Please see Page 9 for a list
of these adaptations. Of course it is understood that VA Prosthetics
and Occupational Therapy may already cover some of these adaptations.
Planned Special Adaptations to James Fair's Home
1. Home Automation
a.
Door openers by (proximity reader)
b.
Toilet Seat (motion and large button activated to lift seat,
cleanse, dry, flush and close seat)
c.
Alarm system (voice activated)--EMS/Fire/Police/Burglary
d.
System operations (HVAC--voice activated)
e.
Sinks--Motion Activated Faucets
f.
Soap Dispensers--Motion Activated
g.
Electric Hand Drier--Motion Activated
h.
Several Hand Driers, vertically mounted to dry off from a bath
i.
Body spray nozzles in shower
2. Home Adaptations
a.
Different flooring per room, for room orientation with feet
b.
Radiant floor heating
c.
Low thresholds to minimize trip hazards
d.
Controls for HVAC, Electrical, Toto toilet seat, etc. . . .
located on the floors or baseboards
e.
Kitchen
i.
Cabinets with sliding doors and pull-down shelving unit
ii.
Stove--voice activated
iii.
Faucet--motion activated
iv.
Drier--motion activated
v.
Dishwasher--voice activated
f.
Rounded wall corners
g.
Sensors in walls or danger areas that beep to let James know
he is getting too close
3. Landscaping/Yard
a.
Private outdoor area with railings--devoid of trip hazards--
cushion surfaced (like playgrounds)
b.
Sound and aroma, calming environment design--running water,
flora, sound system
c.
Solarium or 3 season room
d.
Sitting area
Summary
I would like to express my gratitude for the efforts of this
Committee, the efforts of the Veterans Administration and all who are
involved in administering and implementing the SAH grant. The SAH grant
is a much needed, extremely valuable service that is provided to our
severely injured veterans.
Yet despite its benefits, I feel that the intention and capacity of
the SAH grant is not being fully realized, and should be modernized and
expanded to better assist our severely injured in a manner more fitting
and appropriate to their service and sacrifice to our country.
Homes for Our Troops will gladly assist the Veterans Administration
in developing new criteria and technologies for inclusion into the
requirements of the SAH grant, and will further suggest the possibility
of a VA Representative being assigned to Homes for Our Troops as means
to accomplishing this goal.
Chairwoman Sandlin and members of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, I would again like to thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have and provide any additional information that you might need.
Prepared Statement of Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan Guaranty Service
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss VA's Specially
Adaptive Housing (SAH) programs. In my testimony I would like to
highlight VA's commitment to meeting the housing needs of our Nation's
most seriously disabled veterans.
The Specially Adapted Housing Grant Program
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan program serves a
clientele that is diverse in many ways. The only common denominator of
this clientele is service in the Armed Forces of the Nation. Specially
Adapted Housing (SAH) grants for severely disabled veterans are among
the most important of the benefits that the Loan Guaranty program
provides. Veterans who have specific service-connected disabilities may
be entitled to a grant from VA for the purpose of constructing an
adapted home or modifying an existing home to meet the veteran's needs.
The goal of the SAH grant program is to provide a barrier-free living
environment which affords the veteran a level of independent living
that he or she may not have otherwise enjoyed. Since the inception of
this program in 1948, VA has provided approximately 34,000 grants
totaling $650 million. Since FY 1996, VA has provided this grant
assistance to almost 6,000 severely disabled veterans.
Types of Grants
There are three types of grants administered by VA, which are
available to assist severely disabled veterans in adapting housing to
meet their special needs.
The Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant is generally
used to create a wheelchair accessible home. This grant is currently
limited to $50,000.
The Special Home Adaptations (SHA) grant is generally
used to assist veterans with mobility throughout their homes. This
grant is currently limited to $10,000.
A Temporary Residence Grant (TRA) is now available to
eligible veterans temporarily residing in a home owned by a family
member. Under this program veterans eligible for an SAH grant would be
permitted to use up to $14,000 and those veterans eligible for an SHA
grant would be permitted to use up to $2,000 of the maximum grant
amounts.
Subsequent Use
As a result of P.L. 109-233, eligible veterans or servicemembers
may receive up to three SAH grants. Prior to enactment of this law,
veterans could receive only one SAH grant from VA. Over the past 10
years, VA received approximately 1,000 grant applications per year. As
a result of the enactment of the law permitting multiple-use, in
addition to our normal volume, VA field offices have received 4,200
requests for subsequent use grants as of May 18, 2007. This is clearly
a substantial increase in volume. VA is prepared to devote the
necessary staffing resources to ensure that these veterans receive
timely grant processing.
Eligibility for SAH Grants
The SAH grant is available to veterans who have a service-connected
disability due to military service, entitling them to compensation for
permanent and total disability due to:
The loss, or loss of use of both lower extremities, such
as to preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes,
or a wheelchair, or
Blindness in both eyes, having only light perception,
plus loss or loss of use of one lower extremity, or
The loss, or loss of use of one lower extremity together
with (1) residuals of organic disease or injury, or (2) the loss or
loss of use of one upper extremity, which so affects the functions of
balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion without the aid of
braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair, or
The loss, or loss of use of both upper extremities such
as to preclude use of the arms at or above the elbow.
The SHA grant is available to veterans who have a service-connected
disability due to military service, entitling them to compensation for
permanent and total disability due to:
Blindness in both eyes with 5/200 visual acuity or less,
or
The anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands, or
extremities below the elbow.
Sufficiency of Grant Levels
The last grant increase provided by Congress was in 2003, at which
time the Specially Adapted Housing grant was increased from $48,000 to
$50,000. Since 2003, approximately 98 percent of grant recipients used
the entire grant amount available. Of those who did not use the entire
amount, the average use was over $49,000.
Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
In 2003 VA conducted a survey of SAH grant recipients. The purpose
of this survey was to help us determine whether and how well we were
meeting the needs of our veterans. Ninety-two (92) percent of grant
recipients indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with
the overall SAH grant program. We are currently conducting another
customer satisfaction survey to determine how we have improved in our
SAH grant delivery methods and timeliness. We hope to have the results
from the survey by the end of this fiscal year. We intend to use the
feedback to further improve the grant process.
Related Benefits
Additionally, when appropriate, VA coordinates SAH benefits with
the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment programs for Independent
Living (IL) Services. These programs' employees closely coordinate
their activities when veterans are eligible for both SAH and IL
benefits. This ensures that veterans will receive the optimal services
available from each program, and eliminates the duplication of
benefits.
The SAH and SHA grants can also be used in conjunction with other
VA benefit programs, including:
The Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance program through the
VA Insurance Center,
The VA Guaranteed Home Loan, and Native American Direct
Loan programs through VA Loan Guaranty Service, and
The Home Improvement and Structural Alterations program
through the Prosthetics & Sensory Aids Service (Veterans Health
Administration).
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to be here today and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Statement of Shannon L. Middleton, Deputy Director,
Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion's
views on the Department of Veterans Affairs Specially Adaptive Housing
program.
The American Legion believes the need for Specially Adaptive
Housing is paramount as increasing numbers of severely disabled
veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The signature injuries of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) are blast trauma injuries resulting
from improvised explosive devices (IED) to include--but are not limited
to--amputations, loss of sight in one or both eyes and nerve damage.
Decades ago, many of these veterans would never have survived their
injuries. But, due to advances in protective gear, many combat veterans
return to their lives with permanent, life-altering disabilities. The
Specially Adaptive Housing and the Special Home Adaptation programs
assist these veterans with adapting their housing to accommodate their
special needs and helps to promote independent living.
The Specially Adapted Housing Grant
This grant is available for disabled veterans who are entitled to a
wheelchair-accessible home especially adapted for their needs. These
veterans are service-connected for total and permanent disabilities
that include: loss or loss of use of both lower extremities; blindness
in both eyes and loss or loss of use of one lower extremity; loss or
loss of use of one extremity and residuals of organic disease or
injury; and loss or loss of use of both upper extremities at or above
the elbow. Many of the injured servicemembers may temporarily reside
for extended periods of time with family members providing assistance
during rehabilitation after combat-related injuries that result in
permanent and total service-connected disabilities.
Currently, the program authorized a maximum amount of $50,000 for
this grant--which can be used up to three times. A temporary grant of
$14,000 for veterans residing temporarily in a home owned by a family
member is also available. The cost of construction material and labor
will increase and the grants should be adjusted regularly to reflect
the increase. The American Legion strongly recommends that the current
maximum for this program be increased to reflect the increase in the
residential cost of construction index.
The American Legion strongly recommends that the current $50,000
grant for Specially Adapted Housing be increased to $55,000.
Special Home Adaptations Grant
This grant is available to veterans who are entitled to adaptation
due to blindness in both eyes with 5/200 visual acuity or less, or
includes the anatomical loss of both hands for the actual cost to adapt
a house, or the appraised market value of, adapting features already in
the house when it was purchased. The current maximum grant amount is
$10,000.
The maximum amount for the temporary grant for veterans temporarily
residing with family is $2,000. Depending on the length of the
veteran's stay with the family member, the family member's home may
require extensive adaptations in order to gain independence over the
course of recovery. The American Legion believes that the maximum
amounts for this program should also be increased to accommodate the
increase in the cost of home improvement.
Some of these veterans and their families have already experienced
financial hardships due to loss of the veteran's income or loss of
employment while providing care to the injured veteran. The amount of
the grants, which are designed to meet the needs of veterans who are
facing challenges due to their service-connected disabilities, should
do as much as possible to defray the cost of these necessary
adaptations.
The American Legion strongly recommends that the Special Home
Adaptations grant be increased from $10,000 to $12,300.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving The American Legion this
opportunity to present its views on the Specially Adaptive Housing
program. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to address
this important issue.
Statement of Don D. Cooper, Tacoma, Washington
I'm writing to request that the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs undertake a serious reconsideration of an adequate and proper
funding amount for the Special Adaptive Housing grant. For some time
now it has remained at an inadequate $50,000 maximum grant per
qualifying disabled veteran.
I am a Vietnam era (1968-69), service-connected triple amputee and
wheelchair user. I previously used the Special Adaptive Housing grant
in 1980-81 when I purchased a condominium unit in Seattle that was
undergoing a conversion from rental apartments to individual unit
private ownership. The SAH grant at that time was $30,000 and the cost
of the two bedroom unit was to the best of my recollection $80 to $85
thousand, which was at the time a median priced condo unit for Seattle.
The SAH grant at that time was sufficient to allow me to completely
remodel the kitchen, utility room, both bathrooms, all interior
doorways, flooring, etc., to make the condominium unit into a fully
wheelchair-accessible home; thereby permitting me to live an
independent, full life as I pursued a normal and productive career life
that was as good as anyone could expect with my severe physical
limitations.
In the intervening time period of approximately 26-27 years since I
last used the SAH grant to buy and remodel a home, I find that the
median price of a home in my area has jumped more than fivefold over
that same period of time. If my memory serves me correct, I believe
that I recently read that the overall U.S. median price of a home has
more than tripled since 1980. Yet the SAH grant has increased by only
$20,000, or 67%, to $50,000 within that same time period--not even
doubling over that near 30 year period and thereby not keeping up with
the cost of inflation for housing. In 2005, either the U.S. House or
the Senate considered adding $5,000 to the $50,000 maximum grant
amount, but even that small increase didn't make it to any final bill
passage.
I don't know how our newly disabled Iraqi/Afghani vets, especially
with wheelchair mobility requirements, can be expected to adapt his or
her existing home (let alone purchase a first home!) on only $50,000 at
today's prices. For a fully wheelchair-adaptive home we are talking
significant adaptations to kitchens, bathrooms, interior doors,
electrical placements, flooring, perhaps ramps or lifts, etc.
Now, 26 years after I last used the SAH grant, I have retired from
a successful career life and as part of my retirement experience I
decided last year to sell my last condominium home and purchase a
single-family home with yardage that would provide me with an outdoor
living experience that a condominium building could not. The selling
price of my condominium and the purchase price of the single-family
style home were an even trade, pricewise, but I had to additionally set
aside what I assumed would be adequate funds to cover expected
remodeling costs for wheelchair accessibility. But since buying the
home I have been amazed at the current expense of trying to remodel any
home to make it at least minimally accessible for wheelchair needs. I
have hired an architect and have been told to expect remodeling/
construction costs to average between $150 to $200 per sq. ft. I am
needing a wheelchair lift to have full access to all the home and have
received bids of between $23 to $25 thousand for the cost of simply
purchasing the lift--not including the costs for installation and
construction. Because of the high lift cost, I have decided to forego
any kitchen or utility room remodeling, and will only do one complete
bathroom remodel out of the three total bathrooms in the home. I was
fortunate to receive a relative's donated labor when I remodeled three
interior doors to make them wider, pocket-type doors for ease of
wheelchair access. I have decided to install ramp access to only one of
three exterior doors to also cut down expenses.
I was quite surprised and relieved when I received notice from the
VA last December that I qualified for a reuse of the SAH grant under
the new provisions of P.L. 109-233 passed last June 15, 2006. These new
provisions allow reuse of the SAH grant for up to three times ``as long
as the aggregate amount of assistance does not exceed the maximum
amounts allowable for grants authorized under title 38. . . .'' In my
particular case, this has meant $20,000, the difference between $30K I
used in 1980 and the maximum SAH grant that has existed for several
years at $50K. This unexpected windfall will now allow me to complete
my remodeling project because it will pay for the majority of the cost
of a wheelchair lift, even though I am still forced to scale back my
initial remodel plans because of unanticipated high costs for the
remaining work. Yet, overall, I am still pleased and satisfied with my
decisions as they stand even if they will fail to meet my maximum
benefit. Such is life. Therefore, I don't wish to give the impression
of exhibiting a sour grape attitude to my predicament, or to be a
whiner at the public trough.
Yet my experience and needs as a disabled U.S. veteran since 1969
and comparing it to the future needs and possible experiences of the
newly disabled Iraqi/Afghani vets causes me to be concerned that their
well-being will not be as fully met as it has been for me. Looking at
my care overall, I have been well served by the U.S. Veteran's
Administration and the laws enacted to provide for my care. I can
especially say that this was so in the early years of my disability,
when my needs were greatest to get me started on the path of a
reasonably independent and full life. My basic physical needs were
provided for; my independent transportation needs were taken care of by
the automobile grant; my college education was fully funded, enabling
me to pursue a normal career life; and my independent housing needs
were met as I've outlined above. All four of the above life needs were
important in allowing me to have a fulfilling life in spite of my
severe disability. At present, in giving thought to all this, I'd be
hard pressed to put them in any sort of needs hierarchy.
But this is not the point that I wish to emphasize to this
Subcommittee. The point that I wish to impress upon this Subcommittee
of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs is the importance of fully
funding all four of these life needs that I have found important as a
longtime disabled veteran. From my perspective and experience, the
funding of one of these life needs is currently not being fully met,
and that is the independent housing need.
If I wasn't able to live independently from the beginning, I faced
either being taken care of by my parents or siblings, or living in a
physical care institution. Neither was an acceptable option for me as I
would have most likely deteriorated emotionally over time, since I
valued highly my independence in choice and action, and toward which my
VA funded education and independent transportation abilities had
already pointed me as a desired direction. Not being married at the
time of my war trauma, I did not have the opportunity afterward to have
a third option--that of having my own wife and family to live with
(this will also be the future for many of these newly disabled war
vets).
My experience in meeting this need from 30 years ago and trying to
meet it again at the present day hopefully clarifies my point. If these
housing needs are not adequately funded from the beginning, additional
Federal tax dollars will end up being expended in the future, either
for long-term psychological or institutional care, or both. We owe
these newly minted disabled vets better than that.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Statement of Linda Fraser, Rochester, Indiana, on behalf of Floyd
Fraser
My husband Floyd served in the Army from October 1965 to October
1967 during which he served in Vietnam from May 1966 to May 1967. While
in Vietnam he was wounded three times, including once in the head and
once by being stabbed while in hand-to-hand combat. Floyd was assigned
to the 69th signal corps of the 101st Airborne. He was first assigned
to be a guard for Gen. Westmoreland, during which his head injury
occurred when the compound came under attack.
While in the field, Floyd had heavy exposure to Agent Orange. From
this Floyd has suffered a wide variety of problems, from rashes to the
diabetes he continues to suffer from. Floyd also suffers with PTSD
still today. Thankfully, Floyd has been treated through the VA health
system for all his medical problems since 1983. When Floyd first
started with the VA Hospital for the seizures, he was given 10%
disability for Traumatic Head Injury: they also discovered the PTSD;
later they would discover the type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately, the
diagnosis for diabetes came late, and this led him to develop severe
complications, one being neuropathy of his lower extremities that
worsened to the point where he totally lost feeling in both legs in
2003.
After discharge from the Army, Floyd returned to work at RCA in
Bloomington from 1967 to 1975 when he went to college to become a
funeral director and embalmer. Due to PTSD he was unable to continue to
work in this area as he was having flashbacks to Vietnam and fallen
comrades. This lead to his treatment for the PTSD while unemployed.
From 1983 to 1986, Floyd returned to college for computer training.
Unable to obtain work in that area, he went to work for the Indiana
Highway Department, eventually working himself up to Assistant
Supervisor over bridges and highways. In 2003, Floyd began having
trouble walking and began having difficulty doing his job. He was
admitted to the VA Hospital in Indianapolis where he was told he was
having small strokes and had developed the previously mentioned
neuropathy, resulting in the total loss of feeling from his feet to
just above his knees. At this time he was placed on 100% disability.
In April of 2004 we received a letter from the Department of
Veterans Affairs stating that we were eligible to receive Special
Adaptive Housing. We called the office and spoke with Winston Hunter,
setting up an appointment for him to come to our home. I then began
looking for contractors. Our son Paul did the blueprints for the job to
save money and worked with all the contractors to keep the cost down.
Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful with getting a contractor in our
area to work with the VA because the contractors were unfamiliar with
the program and wanted at least one-fourth of the cost up front.
Finally, in the spring of 2005, we went to a builder's home show in
Kokomo and found a contractor, Bergstrom Home Improvements, willing to
work with the VA and learn how the program worked. Again our son worked
with them on the blueprints.
About two months before the construction started, we gathered all
the involved parties and met with Winston Hunter from the VA in our
home. At this point we had to go in front of the zoning board for
approval, get signatures of neighbors for the okay to build, as well as
other approvals before building could start. While doing this we also
had to set up an escrow account with the title company costing us
$100.00. Soon after, Mr. Hunter, Bergstrom's, and my husband and I all
met to sign the papers. In June the contractors started working and
were done by the middle of July, even though they ran into unforeseen
problems. Our home was built in the 1800s and where the addition was
taking place, there was a log cabin area causing more work than
anticipated. The first stage went well in doing the foundation; it was
the next step in cutting out a window for the new doorway, plus
widening a doorway from the living room to the kitchen area where
problems occurred. Once the problems were under control, they began
building a new handicap accessible bedroom and bath. The new rolling
shower was great until it was used for the first time and water ran all
across the room! The contractors did not lower the floor enough to
allow for drainage, which was fixed once they returned and placed a
strip to stop the flow of water into the room.
In the kitchen we had an island with a range top in the middle. The
contractors only moved this from the center to the wall to give Floyd
enough room to get into and out of the kitchen. Unfortunately, this
area is still unfinished due to the cost already running over by
$5,000.00. When doing the heating and cooling to save money again the
contractor put in flexible piping instead of metal piping. This is not
good for homes in the country like ours because wild animals and mice
eat through flexible piping. After finishing the rooms the contractors
built two concrete ramps, one off the bedroom to serve as an emergency
exit and the other off the kitchen. The pad off the bedroom was too
small for Floyd to use easily to get in and out.
Once the SAH was done it was great for Floyd to be able to get
around in our home and become more independent. This is because all
areas now have a five-foot turnaround for his wheelchair. All outlets
and light switches are at a level accessible to him. Perhaps most
importantly, we were able to get a full-sized bathroom that Floyd is
able to use. Floyd is well pleased with the work the SAH program did.
For all that great good it has done there were also problems. On a
personal level, the main problem was the extra cost we had to pay to
finish the kitchen area due to cost overruns. My impression is that the
cost of the SAH has not increased as rapidly as the inflation of prices
to be able to get all done that is needed. The other major problem we
encountered was the large number of contractors unfamiliar with the
program and unwilling to work with it. According to the contractors we
spoke with, one main impediment for them is the way the money was to be
given to them in different stages.
Thank you for considering our testimony, and thank you for the
assistance this program, despite some hiccups, has provided for myself
and my husband.
Statement of William Joseph Studebaker, Granger, Indiana
My name is William Studebaker and I had the honor of serving in the
United States Army from February 1954 thru February 1956. I was trained
to be a Medical Laboratory Technician in Fort Sam Houston, Texas and
later was transferred to Fort Ord in California. I thoroughly enjoyed
my time in the Army and working in the lab.
When I was 21, I woke up totally blind. Being so young I was more
upset about missing participating in a camp ping-pong tournament than I
was with my blindness. The Veterans Administration diagnosed me with
multiple sclerosis. I was fortunate enough to regain my vision and
finish my stint with the Army. I was also fortunate to be diagnosed
with multiple sclerosis while in the Army but I didn't realize until
much later how fortunate I truly was.
I am now considered to be 100% service-connected disabled because I
am legally blind and because of the multiple sclerosis. I am in a
wheelchair always, have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and am
receiving treatment for prostate cancer. I receive all medical
treatment through the Veteran's Administration Hospital either in
Indianapolis (my primary) or Fort Wayne (dental). The VA has been
outstanding in its care of me and in addressing my changing health and
making certain I receive the adaptive devices I require to remain as
independent as possible. Prior to my health decline I was a high school
science and biology teacher in California for 17 years. I later
returned to college and earned a masters' degree in Blind
Rehabilitation Teaching.
In January 2006 I received a letter from a Mr. Alan Munn of the
National Service Office of Paralyzed Veterans out of Indianapolis. Mr.
Munn requested that I give him a call. I was surprised to receive his
letter as I felt that my health needs were being monitored closely at
the VA Hospital. My wife, Julia, called Mr. Munn. Mr. Munn informed her
that due to my health decline I could be eligible for an increase in my
monthly benefits. He asked my wife several questions regarding my
independence--or lack thereof--and was surprised that my wife took care
of all my needs including dressing me, bathing me, sometimes feeding
me. He scheduled a physical for me on February 14, 2006 at the Marian
VA Hospital.
I was also working with a Michael Buescher of the Fort Wayne
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Office through the VA. Mr.
Buescher and Mr. Munn both advised my wife and me to apply for the SAH
grant. Why? They explained that the grant would allow us to make
adaptations to our home to make it safer and more wheelchair friendly.
Our house is only 10 years old but it was not built to accommodate
wheelchairs or a man who tends to fall out of his wheelchair.
Mr. Winston Hunter, Special Adapted Housing Agent from the
Indianapolis Field Team, contacted us and scheduled a home visit on
November 16, 2005. He did not tell my wife that I needed to be at the
visit and I spent the day at my office (adult daycare). Mr. Hunter
toured the house and had my wife fill out paperwork and watch a video
about the possibilities the grant had to offer regarding home
adaptations. Calls and paperwork between Mr. Hunter and my wife
persisted through April of 2006 when Mr. Hunter requested a meeting
with me. No problem as we are down in Indianapolis at least three times
a month for my medical appointments. Mr. Hunter needed to see me in
person as proof that I was indeed in a wheelchair and agreeable to the
potential house modifications.
We had a Mr. Louis Seago, a local contractor, come to our home and
sit down with us and listen to our ideas and why we wanted to make
certain changes. Mr. Seago offered several suggestions also including
lowering the thermostat so that I could reach it to set it from the
wheelchair. Paperwork continually needed to be updated, re-sent,
explained, waivers were signed, etc. It was a lengthy process but
everyone involved knew there was a light at the end of the tunnel.
Work on widening our hallways and doorways and adding a ramp off of
the master bedroom began in December 2006. A mild winter enabled Mr.
Seago's crew to install our ramp in January. They also put in French
glass doors from the master bedroom to the ramp as the old sliding
doors did not accommodate my wheelchair.
In January, Mike and Scott, Mr. Seago's crew, were widening the
doorways from the garage into the hallway with the washer and dryer
that leads into the house. They moved the dryer vent around to the side
so that the vent was out of the way and the dryer could be pushed back
closer to the wall. This may not seem to be a big deal but it was a
huge deal in my story and why this housing grant was so beneficial to
my wife and me.
On the morning of January 12, 2007, I fell while transferring from
my house wheelchair to my ``outdoor'' wheelchair. The house wheelchair
is called a quickie and it isn't as wide as a traditional wheelchair.
Nor is it as sturdy which was why we could only use it in the house. We
were in a hurry to leave for work. We leave every morning by 6:35 so
that Julia can drop me off at my office before she heads over to her
office 45 minutes away. I neglected to put on the brakes on my quickie
wheelchair. When I stood up to transfer, the quickie rolled backward
and I panicked and fell hard to the tile floor. Julia was in front of
me holding the outdoor wheelchair and assists me into that chair by
grabbing my hips and helping to rotate my hips.
Julia tried to pick me up herself several times. I weigh about 215
pounds and Julia weighs about 108 pounds. She is strong but I am dead
weight. I could not put any weight on my right leg. Julia went and got
the Hoyer lift the VA had dispensed to me about eight years earlier to
help get me up off the floor when I fall. Thanks to the dryer being
moved back against the wall the lift fit easily in the laundry room and
Julia was able to crank me up and put me into a wheelchair and take me
to work. I complained that my right leg hurt and Julia checked it
before she left and said it looked a little red. She mentioned my fall
and pain to Joanne, the morning person at my office. (The Veteran's
Administration also covers the cost of my daycare. I was the first
veteran in this part of the State to qualify for adult daycare coverage
and that was a long struggle. Happily, now my office has at least a
dozen veterans who utilize the facility while their loved ones work and
get a break from being caregivers).
Julia was called about 10:30 by Norma, who works at my office to
see if it was all right to give me something for the pain in my leg.
Julia gave her approval for me to have aspirin. About 11:00 Cindy, the
office nurse, called Julia saying my right leg was really hurting me
and that I needed to see a doctor. Again, this is a Friday afternoon
and Monday was Martin Luther King day. Julia told Cindy that she would
pick me up at 3:00 for a 3:30 appointment with our family doctor. Julia
decided not to make the 3.5 hour drive to Indianapolis. Julia also
called the Marian VA Hospital to make certain that she could take me to
our family doctor. Julia did not pick me up immediately as Scott and
Mike were at the house working on the wider doors.
Long story short--maybe. It turns out that I had badly broken my
right leg. At Dr. Oppman's office it took several people to get me onto
the x-ray table. He sent me over to the emergency room. Fortunately, we
have a van with a lift provided by the Veteran's Administration (the
life portion). At St. Joseph Hospital it took six workers to get me out
of my wheelchair onto the examination table.
A cast was put on my leg that started at my toes and it goes clear
up to the top of my right leg. No surgery because the doctors' decided
not to put me through it as I am always in a wheelchair. The doctors
would not let me leave the hospital until my wife went home and brought
back a larger wheelchair with a high back and longer leg rest. My cast
is not flexible at all! The larger wheelchair would not have fit into
the house with the old, narrow doorways and hallways.
The bottom line is that without the SAH grant making modifications
to our home I would not have been able to return home. I would have had
to go and stay at a nursing home. It is now June 4th and I am still in
that same long cast using the same larger wheelchair but I am at HOME
where I belong!
It is not just this SAH grant that I say a heartfelt thanks to the
Veteran's Administration and the government for but it is for the years
of assistance I have received and help and sound advice from VA
employees. Without the van lift, the Hoyer lift, the larger wheelchair,
a ramp in the garage, exceptional employees like Winston Hunter and
Allan Munn I don't know what my wife and I would have done or how we
would have managed. The SAH grant has been a life saver. Yes, it was a
long process and very time consuming but we are grateful that it is
available to veterans who want to remain in their own home or in their
parents' home. I am able to live at home thanks to the veterans and
more importantly thanks to my wife who has stood beside me and helped
open doors and perused adaptive equipment and the SAH grant for me
through the Veteran's Administration.
Thank you Members of Congress for taking care of American Veterans
and their families. Keep up the good work--please!
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
June 8, 2007
Mr. Carl Blake
National Legislative Director
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Blake:
Thank you for testifying before the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program on June 7, 2007.
I am submitting additional questions to be included in the hearing
record. I would appreciate your response to the enclosed additional
questions for the record by close of business July 6, 2007.
Please restate the question in its entirety and please provide your
answers consecutively on letter size paper, single-spaced.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Republican Member
__________
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Washington, DC
July 10, 2007
Honorable John Boozman
Ranking Member
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
333 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Boozman:
On behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I would like to
thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity on
Thursday, June 7, 2007. As we stated in our testimony, the Specially
Adapted Housing grant is one of the most important benefits available
to PVA members, veterans who have incurred a spinal cord injury or
disease.
Following the hearing, you submitted additional questions as it
regards this program. The attached document provides PVA's response to
your further inquiry of this extremely important benefit.
PVA looks forward to working with you and Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin to ensure that the most appropriate enhancements are made to
the Specially Adapted Housing grant. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Carl Blake
National Legislative Director
__________
Question 1: Assuming the costs of the following proposals are
equal, which would you prefer?
a. An increase in adaptive housing grant; or
b. A second grant of $50,000 to adapt a subsequent home.
Answer: As we have testified in the past, both of these
possibilities are a high priority for PVA. Ultimately, we do not
believe that we should have to choose between one option and the other.
However, for the sake of this discussion, I will comment on this
question.
PVA has long advocated for an increase in the Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) grant. As you are probably aware, The Independent Budget
for FY 2008 recommends that the SAH grant be increased to $60,000.
However, we believe that the more important recommendation for the SAH
grant is to develop an automatic annual index for this grant. If an
index was enacted, we believe that the larger issue of maintaining the
purchasing power of the grant year-after-year would be achieved. This
would ensure that, at the very least, the grant would keep pace with
inflation.
However, we believe that the option for a second grant of $50,000
to adapt a subsequent home would be more important to PVA's membership.
As such, we place this at the top of our preference list of
enhancements to the SAH grant. I would also note that this is also a
recommendation in The Independent Budget for FY 2008. Like the needs of
other families today, veterans' housing needs tend to change with time
and new circumstances. An initial home may become too small when the
family grows or become too large when children leave home. Changes in
the nature of a veteran's disability may necessitate a home configured
differently and changes in the special adaptations. These things merit
a second grant to cover the costs of adaptations to a new home.
We hope that the Subcommittee will consider both of these issues as
it seeks to enhance the SAH program. PVA looks forward to working with
the Subcommittee to ensure that legislation considered best benefits
the severely disabled veterans eligible for the SAH grant. We would be
happy to respond to any additional questions that you might have.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
June 8, 2007
Mr. Brian Lawrence
Assistant National Legislative Director
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
Thank you for testifying before the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program on June 7, 2007.
I am submitting additional questions to be included in the hearing
record. I would appreciate your response to the enclosed additional
questions for the record by close of business July 6, 2007.
Please restate the question in its entirety and please provide your
answers consecutively on letter size paper, single-spaced.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Republican Member
__________
Post-Hearing Question and Response for the Record
Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director
Disabled American Veterans
Before the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
United States House of Representatives
June 7, 2007
QUESTION:
1. Assuming the costs of the following proposals are equal, which
would you prefer?
A. An increase in adaptive housing grant; or
B. A second grant of $50,000 to adapt a subsequent home.
RESPONSE:
The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) would prefer an increase in
the adaptive housing grant. Currently, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) has interrupted the law for adaptive housing grants to
allow a qualified veteran to apply any unused portion of his or her
adaptive housing grant toward a newly qualified renovation to a home.
Therefore, even older veterans who have used less than the maximum of
their adaptive housing grant could benefit from an increase in the
adaptive housing grant.
DAV appreciated the opportunity to provide these comments as an
addendum to our testimony during the June 7, 2007 hearing.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
June 8, 2007
Mr. Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D.
Director of Government Relations
Blinded Veterans Association
477 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Zampieri:
Thank you for testifying before the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program on June 7, 2007.
I am submitting additional questions to be included in the hearing
record. I would appreciate your response to the enclosed additional
questions for the record by close of business July 6, 2007.
Please restate the question in its entirety and please provide your
answers consecutively on letter size paper, single-spaced.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Republican Member
__________
Blinded Veterans Association
Washington, DC
June 23, 2007
The Honorable John Boozman
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunities
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
335 Cannon House Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boozman:
On behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association (BVA), the only
congressionally chartered veterans' service organization exclusively
dedicated to serving the needs of our Nation's blinded veterans and
their families for over 60 years, BVA would like to express strong
support of your leadership to increase benefits for special adaptive
housing as recommended by all endorsers of The Independent Budget. BVA
would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your unwavering
support of our Nation's disabled veterans in trying to make some
increase in the adaptive housing grants necessary to meet the needs of
veterans to live independently.
In regards to the questions on assuming the costs of the following
proposals are equal which would you prefer in your followup questions
BVA would respond this way.
1. (A) BVA would prefer that the total increase for adaptive
housing grant be made for the veterans' residence to meet the higher
costs of making the adjustments necessary to live independently. In
regards to the question of a second grant of $50,000 to adapt a
subsequent house, we would recommend that a smaller grant be made
available to cover expenses if a veteran has to move into another home
either for access to employment or to improve access to public
transportation. Our experience is often disabled veterans who get the
adaptive housing grants live in their homes for many years without
moving, however if with the changing employment situation they must
move they should be entitled to have another grant to cover some
modifications in a new home similar to provision for a OIF veteran who
initially lives with parents and then moves into their own home.
It is essential that the VA have this authority in any legislation
to both provide for an increase in the current amount for adaptive
housing grants, but to allow some provision for those who do have to
move. We would argue that many studies show that it is less expensive
to the government to support a disabled individual to live
independently than to live in a nursing home or assisted living
facility.
Once again, BVA thanks you for your tireless efforts on behalf of
all veterans. We look forward to working with you and all members of
the Committee.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D.
Director, Government Relations
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
June 8, 2007
Mr. Brian Catalde
President
National Association of Home Builders
Paragon Communities, Inc.
203 Richmond St.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Dear Mr. Catalde:
Thank you for testifying before the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program on June 7, 2007.
I am submitting additional questions to be included in the hearing
record. I would appreciate your response to the enclosed additional
questions for the record by close of business July 6, 2007.
Please restate the question in its entirety and please provide your
answers consecutively on letter size paper, single-spaced.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Republican Member
__________
Questions from Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, to Brian Catalde, President,
National Association of Home Builders, and President and Chief
Operating
Officer, Paragon Communities, El Segundo, California
1. If we were to authorize tying grant increases to some cost of
construction, which construction index would you suggest?
2. We have heard testimony that it cost more to renovate an
existing structure then to build from scratch. Do you agree with that
statement?
3. What is the range of construction cost across the nation?
4. You suggested compiling a list of approved contractors. Who
would maintain such a list and who would determine the qualifications
to be included on the list and wouldn't such a list eliminate access to
qualified contractors?
__________
[NO RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS WAS RECEIVED FROM MR. CATALDE.]
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
June 8, 2007
Mr. Keith Pedigo
Director
Loan Guaranty Service
Department of Veterans Affairs
1800 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Pedigo:
Thank you for testifying before the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Specially
Adaptive Housing grant program on June 7, 2007.
I am submitting additional questions to be included in the hearing
record. I would appreciate your response to the enclosed additional
questions for the record by close of business July 6, 2007.
Please restate the question in its entirety and please provide your
answers consecutively on letter size paper, single-spaced.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Republican Member
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
June 7, 2007
Specially Adaptive Housing Grant Program
Question 1: After the enactment of P.L. 109-233, the VA has seen an
increase in the number of grant applications from 1,000 per year to
4,200 applications in FY 2007. Please compare the pre and post P.L.
109-233 time required to begin construction once a vet has been
determined eligible for a grant.
Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is conducting
data analysis to better answer your question and will provide a
response by September 2007.
Question 2: Please provide the total number of loan guarantee staff
dedicated to the SAH program prior to and after P.L. 109-233.
Response: Both prior to and after Public Law (P.L) 109-233, VA has
had 13 full-time and 63 part-time specially adaptive housing (SAH)
agents. The Veterans Benefit Administration is in the process of hiring
an additional 25 SAH agents at the regional loan enters.
Question 3: Please describe how Loan Guarantee field staff
coordinates the SAH grant between veteran, builder and the financial
institution.
Response: To inform the veteran about the SAH program, the SAH
agent conducts an initial meeting with the veteran. These meetings take
place in-person whenever possible. During the meeting, the agent
describes the various construction options available to create a
barrier-free living environment. The agent also provides a copy of VA
Pamphlet M26-13, Handbook for Design. M26-13 describes the specific
accessibility features that could be incorporated into the design and
construction, such as widening doorways, installing ramps and
handrails, and other similar enhancements. In addition, the agent may
also provide a list of contractors that have been approved for SAH work
in the area. VA does not recommend a specific contractor. The agent
also takes this opportunity to inform the veteran about other VA
resources and benefits that may be available to them, such as home
improvement and structural alterations (HISA), to improve their
independence.
Once the veteran selects a contractor, the SAH agent meets with the
veteran and contractor to review the SAH program requirements and
answer any questions. At this time, a copy of the Handbook for Design
is also made available to the contractor.
When the veteran and contractor have agreed to a contract and set
of design plans, they submit the plans to the SAH agent for review and
approval. The SAH agent may require changes to the plans to ensure that
the adaptations will be suitable to the veteran's needs for dwelling
purposes. In such cases, the agent returns the plans to the veteran and
contractor for revision. The revised plans will then come back to the
agent for final approval.
Once the grant has been approved, the SAH agent requests the grant
funds from the Treasury. When received, the SAH agent deposits the
funds into an escrow account selected by the veteran. At the time of
deposit into the escrow account, the SAH agent, veteran, contractor and
escrow agent meet and discuss the disbursement schedule of the grant
funds.
VA then assigns a VA compliance inspector to the construction
project to assess the completion of the scheduled construction phases.
The VA compliance inspector notifies the SAH agent when a phase is
considered complete and pursuant to the escrow agreement the agent then
contacts the escrow agent to authorize release of the prescribed
portion of grant funds.
To ensure continuity, the SAH agent works with the veteran
throughout the process and regularly stays in communication via
telephone, email or personal visits.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2007 Lender Satisfaction Survey with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program
Introduction and Background
This report presents findings from the 2007 Lender Satisfaction
Survey with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program. The report represents
the fourth iteration of the survey; however, it represents the first
administration since 2002. The survey was sponsored by VA's Loan
Guaranty Service (LGY) and was conducted by Caliber/ICF International,
a global research consulting organization.
The primary objective of the survey was to gauge lender
satisfaction with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program at both the
regional and national levels. The survey examined lender satisfaction
in a number of areas, including contact with VA, awareness of the
program, training, outreach, eligibility determination, appraisal
process, and overall impressions. Prior to administering the 2007
version, VA made minor revisions to the questionnaire by adding or
modifying questions.
The results of the survey can be used to:
Identify areas of the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program which
are most and least satisfying to lenders;
Determine which improvements to the program will have the
greatest impact on lender satisfaction; and
Provide data to support performance measures tracked by
VA on an annual basis.
This report presents the results of the 2007 survey and, where
applicable, presents data comparisons with the 2002 survey.
Methodology
VA requested survey responses from the census of 2,000 lending
institutions that had closed at least five loans in the first half of
the Fiscal Year. Respondents were mailed three packages:
First Invitation Letter--invitation letter with Web link
and login
Reminder #1--reminder postcard
Reminder #2--reminder postcard
The survey was administered via the Web from June 4, 2007 to August
22, 2007. The final overall response rate was 33.98%. Table 1 presents
the sample distribution and the associated response rate.
Table 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Lender Satisfaction Survey
Final Sample Distribution and Response Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mailed 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received Paper N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received Web 630
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Received 630
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undeliverable 146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deceased 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refused 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (minus Undel) 1,854
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Rate 33.98%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the lenders who responded to the survey adequately
represented the census of lenders, we examined whether the responders
differed from the non-responders in terms of lender size. We found that
the majority of the largest lenders responded to the survey and there
was little difference between the respondents and non-respondents.
Additionally, since there was very little relationship between the
lenders' self-reported primary RLC and the RLC in the administrative
dataset (as many lenders are national providers), we did not weight the
data by Regional Loan Center. As a result, the data was not weighted by
any lender characteristic.
Report Highlights
There was one strategic performance measure that was gathered from
this survey:
Overall Satisfaction with the VA Home Loan Guaranty
Program (Q60): In 2007, 93.2% of lenders reported being very or
somewhat satisfied with the VA home loan guaranty program.
(Satisfaction with the program was high regardless of lender size.)
The following bullets highlight some of the other major findings
from this survey:
About two-thirds of the lending institutions responding
to the survey had been in the mortgage industry for 15 years or more.
Inquiries about underwriting remained the top reason for
lenders contacting RLCs. Three in four lenders indicated that phone was
the preferred method to contact VA, and 96% of lenders rated VA as
responsive.
About two-thirds of lenders attended one VA training
session in the past 12 months and one-third attended two or more
training sessions, with online training being the preferred method.
Furthermore, 92% of lenders found VA training sessions effective.
96% of lenders encouraged eligible veterans to use the
Loan Guaranty program with 71% indicating that the no downpayment
feature was the most attractive element.
About one-third indicated that lenders misperceive the
program. However, four in five lenders believe VA can alter these
perceptions.
Comparing the survey results of 2002 to 2007, there was a
6% point increase in satisfaction with the quality of work of VA
appraisers. Similarly, there was a 6% point increase in satisfaction
with courtesy and professionalism of VA appraisers and a 10% point
increase in satisfaction with the timeliness of VA appraisers.
Nearly 100% of lenders would recommend the Loan Guaranty
program to veterans.
We also conducted a quadrant analysis to identify areas of high
program performance and areas for program improvement that are of
greatest importance to lenders. The customer satisfaction items in the
quadrant analysis were plotted on the basis of importance and
satisfaction with the quadrant lines placed at the approximate
midpoints of the scores at the national level (quadrant I). Similarly,
areas in which customers place high importance and rate high
satisfaction offer VA opportunities to market program success (quadrant
II). The following bullets provide a summary of the customer
satisfaction items found in quadrants I and II.
Quadrant I: High Priority Action Items (High Importance;
Low Satisfaction)
-- Timeliness of VA appraisers (Q55)
-- Courtesy and professionalism of appraisers (Q56)
-- Quality of work of VA appraisers (Q57)
Quadrant II: High Priority Relationship Building Items
(High Importance; High Satisfaction)
-- Satisfaction with the timeliness and the clarity of
information lenders receive from the VA (Q17, Q18)
-- Effectiveness and quality of VA-sponsored trainings (Q26,
Q28)
-- Satisfaction with VA's online systems (Q47)
-- Satisfaction with the information and the informational
resources provided by VA (Q30)
-- Satisfaction with your experiences contacting VA personnel at
the Regional Loan Center (Q14)
-- Satisfaction with the professionalism of VA personnel (Q11)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2007 Specially Adapted Housing Program: Grantee Survey
Introduction and Background
This report presents findings from the 2007 Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) Program Survey. The report represents the second
iteration of the survey; the last iteration was conducted as part of a
program evaluation in 2002-2003. The survey was sponsored by VA's Loan
Guaranty Service (LGY) and was conducted by Caliber/ICF International,
a global research consulting organization.
The primary objective of the survey was to gauge veteran
satisfaction from the census of veterans who received the final
disbursement of their grants from the SAH program in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006. The survey examined veteran satisfaction around a number of
areas, including learning about the SAH program; initial letter of
notification; program eligibility and application; SAH contacts/
communication; grant type and plans; receiving the grant funds; using
the SAH grant; satisfaction with contractor; satisfaction with
inspector; and overall satisfaction with the program experience.
Prior to administering the 2007 version, VA significantly revised
the questionnaire and added additional questions of interest. Cognitive
lab sessions were used to refine and pilot-test the instrument.
The results of the survey can be used to:
Identify areas of the SAH grant process where veterans
are most and least satisfied;
Determine which improvements to the process will have the
greatest impact on veteran satisfaction with the SAH program; and
Provide data to support performance measures tracked by
VA on an annual basis.
This report presents the results of the 2007 survey.
Methodology
The survey was mailed to the census of individuals that received
their final disbursement on an SAH grant in FY 2006, had a valid home
address, and were not recorded as deceased in VA's databases (n = 408).
(Note: In the 2003 survey, the census was drawn based on the FY grant
approved date, as compared to the final disbursement date. Therefore,
the population of veterans surveyed in the 2003 survey may not have
completed construction modifications to their home at the time of the
survey.)
Respondents were mailed four packages:
First Survey Package--cover letter; survey; business
reply envelope
Reminder #1--reminder postcard
Second Survey Package--cover letter; survey; business
reply envelope
Reminder #2--reminder postcard
The survey was administered from June 4, 2007 to August 20, 2007.
The final overall response rate was 68.79%. Table 1 presents the sample
distribution and the associated response rate.
Table 1:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 VA Specially Adapted Housing Survey
Final Sample Distribution and Response Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
(minus Response
Mailed Undeliverable Refused Deceased Undel) Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 408 46 0 0 362 68.79%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Highlights
There was one strategic performance measure that was gathered from
this survey:
Do the housing adaptations help you live more
independently? (Q82): In 2007, 93.2% of veterans strongly agreed or
agreed that the adaptations allow them to live more independently.
The following bullets highlight some of the other major findings
from this survey:
Veteran Service Organizations (VSO), letters from VA, and
VA marketing materials were the most frequent way grantees first
learned about the SAH. When it was a VSO, most grantees learned from
Disabled American Veterans (43%) or Paralyzed Veterans of America
(25%). However, personal visits from SAH agents were the most effective
way to learn about the program.
The majority of SAH grant recipients reported contact
with their agent within 30 days of receipt of 26-39 letter.
Almost 25% reported having problems with the grant
application. Common problems included: (1) asked for information felt
VA should have; or (2) some of the instructions were confusing.
About three in four veterans felt that VA kept them
informed about the status of their SAH application.
91% of the applicants received the maximum grant amount.
For Type A grant users, almost 60% remodeled an existing
home. Of those who were unable to use their first choice of grant plan,
about half had to acquire land because their original plan to adapt
their house was not feasible. For Type B grant users, about half
adapted a current house.
93% rated the adaptive items provided by the SAH grant as
adequate. Over 90% used the grant to make bathrooms accessible. Other
common uses were: (1) install grab bars; (2) widen door openings; or
(3) install ramps. Over 50% rated accessible bathrooms as most
important to independent living.
For about half of veterans (53%), it takes more than 120
days to build or modify their specially adapted home. Four in ten grant
recipients had difficulty identifying contractors.
Over 85 percent rated communication with SAH agent as
excellent or good. Veterans who rated communication as excellent/good
were likely to be highly satisfied with the overall SAH program. About
three-fourths said that they spent as much time with the SAH agent as
they wanted.
95% of grantees would recommend the SAH grant program to
other veterans with service-connected disabilities.
We also conducted a quadrant analysis to identify areas of high
program performance and areas for program improvement that are of
greatest importance to lenders. The customer satisfaction items are
plotted on the basis of importance and satisfaction with the quadrant
lines placed at the approximate midpoints of the scores at the national
level. Generally, areas in which customers place high importance but
indicate relatively low satisfaction are those that require attention
(quadrant I). Similarly, areas in which customers place high importance
and rate high satisfaction offer VA opportunities to market program
success (quadrant II). The following bullets provide a summary of the
customer satisfaction items found in quadrants I and II.
Quadrant I: High Priority Action Items (High Importance;
Low Satisfaction)
-- Reasonableness of the time to receive an initial letter of
notification, 26-39 letter (Q6)
-- Extent to which sources of learning about the program are
informative (Q2)
-- Extent to which veterans are kept informed of the application
status/process (Q17)
-- Extent to which veterans are able to spend as much time with
SAH agent as they wanted (Q27)
Quadrant II: High Priority Relationship Building Items
(High Importance; High Satisfaction)
-- Information provided by the SAH agent (e.g., brochures,
pamphlets, video, and handbook) (Q21)
-- Level of satisfaction with the SAH agent's communication
(Q22)
-- Involvement in the decisions about the planned adaptations
(Q26)
-- Level of responsiveness of the SAH agent to questions and
inquiries (Q36)
-- Opportunity to discuss the desired modifications with the SAH
agent when meeting or calling (Q39)
-- Courtesy of the SAH agent (Q40)
-- Level of satisfaction with adaptive items (Q63)
-- Adequacy of the grant amount (Q53)
-- Level of satisfaction with inspector's performance (Q76)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2007 Specially Adapted Housing Program: Non-Grantee Survey
Introduction and Background
This report presents findings from the 2007 Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) Program: Non-Grantee Survey. The report represents the
first iteration of the survey. The survey was sponsored by VA's Loan
Guaranty Service (LGY) and was conducted by Caliber/ICF International,
a global research consulting organization, under contract GS-23F8062H,
V10DY67266.
The primary objective of the survey was to examine the reasons why
eligible SAH beneficiaries have not yet applied for the SAH grant. The
intent of the survey was to provide valid data at the national level.
The results of the survey can be used to:
Identify the barriers eligible beneficiaries have in
learning of the program and applying for the SAH grant;
Determine which improvements to the SAH grant process
will have the greatest impact in terms of eligible individuals applying
for and receiving a grant to accommodate their needs; and
Provide data to support performance measures tracked by
the VA on an annual basis.
This report presents the results of the 2007 survey.
Methodology
The survey was mailed to the census of living individuals that were
rated eligible for a SAH grant in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2006 but have
yet to use a grant (n = 968). Respondents were sent three mailing
packages:
First Survey Package--cover letter; survey; business
reply envelope
Reminder #1--reminder postcard
Second Survey Package--cover letter; survey; business
reply envelope
The survey was fielded from June 6, 2007 to August 22, 2007. The
final overall response rate was 57.48%. Table 1 presents the sample
distribution and the associated response rate.
Table 1:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 VA Specially Adapted Housing: Eligible Non-Grantee Survey
Final Sample Distribution and Response Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
(minus Response
Mailed Undeliverable Refused Deceased Undel) Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 968 72 0 0 896 57.48%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Highlights
The following bullets highlight some of the major findings from
this survey:
Approximately four in five non-grantees (83%) are aware
of the program and over half of non-grantees feel that an award letter
is the best way to inform veterans about the SAH program.
Two-thirds of the non-grantees have never applied to the
SAH program (67%). Of those who have not yet applied, about one-third
are unsure how to apply (31%) and one-third want to use the grant in
the future (30%).
About half of those that submitted applications had
difficulty with the grant approval process (55%). The major reasons
were: (1) current house not suitable for adaptation; (2) developing the
building/remodeling plans; or (3) contractor problems.
Overall, the reasons for not obtaining or using a SAH
grant varied with 21% of non-grantees indicating that they decided to
defer grant to later time.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2007 Veteran Satisfaction Survey with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program
Introduction and Background
This report presents findings from the 2007 Veteran Satisfaction
Survey with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program. The report represents
the fifth iteration of the survey since it was originally developed in
2000; however, it represents the first administration since 2003. The
survey was sponsored by VA's Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) and was
conducted by Caliber/ICF International, a global research consulting
organization.
The primary objective of the survey was to gauge satisfaction from
a representative sample of veterans who recently obtained a VA home
loan at both the national and regional levels. The survey examined
veteran satisfaction in a number of areas, including contact with VA,
certificate of eligibility, realtor, lender, appraisal, and overall
impressions. Prior to administering the 2007 survey version, VA made
minor revisions to the questionnaire by adding or modifying questions.
The results of the survey can be used to:
Identify areas of the home loan process where veterans
are most and least satisfied at the national and Regional Loan Center
(RLC) levels;
Determine which improvements to the process will have the
greatest impact on veteran satisfaction; and
Provide data to support performance measures tracked by
the VA on an annual basis.
This report presents the results of the 2007 survey and, where
applicable, presents comparison data to the 2003 survey.
Methodology
The survey was mailed to a random sample of 13,506 veterans who had
closed a purchase home loan in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 from October 2006
to May 2007. (Note: In the 2003 survey, the sample included veterans
who obtained either a purchase or refinance loan. The RLC jurisdictions
also changed slightly from 2003 to 2007.) For each of the RLCs, the
survey was mailed to approximately 1,400 veterans who had closed a
purchase loan, except for Honolulu. Honolulu had a smaller sample
population due to its size.
Respondents were sent four mailing packages:
First Survey Package--cover letter; survey; and business
reply envelope
Reminder #1--reminder postcard
Second Survey Package--cover letter; survey; and business
reply envelope
Reminder #2--reminder postcard
The survey was administered from June 4, 2007 to August 20, 2007.
Respondents had the option of completing the survey on paper or on the
Web. Upon conclusion of the survey field-period, 72.5% of respondents
completed the paper survey and the remaining 27.5% completed the Web
survey. The final overall response rate was 33.31% and ranged from a
high of 38.59% for the Manchester RLC to a low of 28.35% for the
Roanoke RLC.
Given that the response rate was lower than expected, a series of
non-response analyses were conducted to determine if the responders
(i.e., those who completed the survey) were different in a meaningful
way from the non-responders (i.e., those who did not complete the
survey). The analyses included demographic comparisons on key
variables, including age, loan amount, income, RLC, and gender. The
analyses indicated that there were minimal differences between
respondents and non-respondents, except for age and RLC. The analyses
showed that older veterans responded at a higher rate than younger
veterans, and veterans from some regions responded at a higher rate
than veterans from other regions. As a result, the data was weighted by
age and RLC. Table 1 presents the sample distribution and the
associated response rates by RLC.
Table 1:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Survey of Veteran Satisfaction
with the VA Home Loan Guaranty Process
Final Sample Distribution and Response Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Unde- (minus Response
RLC Mailed liverable Refused Deceased Undel) Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta 1403 36 1 2 1364 30.28%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland 1408 19 1 0 1388 35.73%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver 1405 76 0 0 1329 28.74%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu 847 99 0 0 748 29.95%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston 1407 48 1 0 1358 35.71%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester 1407 61 1 0 1345 38.59%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix 1407 66 1 0 1340 34.18%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roanoke 1407 41 1 0 1365 28.35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul 1406 17 0 0 1389 37.51%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Petersburg 1409 35 0 0 1374 32.39%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 13506 498 6 2 13000 33.31%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Highlights
There was one strategic performance measure that was gathered from
this survey:
Overall Satisfaction with Process of Receiving a VA Home
Loan (Q69): In 2007, 93.1% of veterans reported being very or somewhat
satisfied with the VA home loan process.
The following bullets highlight some of the other major findings
from this survey:
Lenders and VA Website effectively informed veterans
about the Loan Guaranty program.
Almost half of veterans preferred to hear from VA via a
letter; the percentage of veterans who indicated e-mail and Website
were sizable, but preference for these options declined with age.
About half of veterans contacted VA with the majority
using the telephone to make the contact. The number of veterans who
visited a RLC declined between the 2003 and 2007 survey.
In general, the purpose of veteran contact with VA was to
apply for the COE or to get information before applying. Lenders
obtained the veteran's COE in 41% of the cases and over 90% of the
veterans reported being satisfied if their COEs were processed in 10
days or less.
One in three veterans reported that their loans were
processed in less than 2 weeks. Another 36% of loans were processed
between 2-4 weeks and the remaining 20% could not recall the timeframe.
Over 80% of veterans were satisfied with their realtor
and 60% rated their realtor's knowledge of VA's programs as excellent
or very good. Only 7% of veterans reported that their realtor
discouraged them from using the Loan Guaranty program.
88% of veterans were satisfied or very satisfied with
their lender. Satisfaction with the Loan Guaranty program improved when
lender knowledge of the program was high.
74% of veterans were satisfied or very satisfied with the
appraisal process and 86% were satisfied or very satisfied with the
appraiser.
Veterans were attracted to the no downpayment feature of
the program. Previous experience with the program was another strong
motivator in choosing to get a VA home loan.
Across all RLCs, there was an increase in the
consideration of alternative loan products. However, 26% of veterans
reported that if they had not received their VA home loan, they would
not have been able to purchase their home.
99% would recommend the Loan Guaranty program to other
veterans.
We also conducted a quadrant analysis to identify areas of high
program performance and areas for program improvement that are of
greatest importance to our veterans. The customer satisfaction items in
the quadrant analysis are plotted on the basis of importance and
satisfaction with the quadrant lines placed at the approximate
midpoints of the scores at the national level. Generally, areas in
which customers place high importance, but indicate relatively low
satisfaction, are those that require attention (quadrant I). Similarly,
areas in which customers place high importance and rate high
satisfaction offer VA opportunities to market program success (quadrant
II). The following bullets provide a summary of the customer
satisfaction items found in quadrants I and II.
Quadrant I: High Priority Action Items (High Importance;
Low Satisfaction)
-- Extent to which VA toll-free telephone contact provided
veterans what they needed to know (Q15)
-- Level of satisfaction with the appraisal process (Q57)
-- Extent to which veterans felt time to receive COE was
reasonable (Q34)
Quadrant II: High Priority Relationship Building Items
(High Importance; High Satisfaction)
-- Accuracy of information received about the program (Q4)
-- Level of satisfaction with realtor (Q39)
-- Level of satisfaction with lender (Q48)
-- Ease to which veterans could get information on the program
from their lender (Q44)
-- Responsiveness of VA employees on the phone (Q13)
-- Satisfaction with the quality of the appraisal (Q64)