SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Since 2001, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa have created a new generation of veterans who may be eligible for federal veteran’s benefits because of their wartime service and their physical and mental conditions.
(b) Californians make up to 10 percent of the federal military forces deployed in these conflicts. Furthermore, the California National Guard and other California-based reserve units have made significant contributions to these current conflicts.
(c) Many of the more than 400,000 returning California veterans are not aware of the federal and state benefits that are available to them.
(d) Additionally, it is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of veterans, as well as their widows or widowers, in California, who are unaware that they may be eligible for pensions from the federal government based upon their or their spouses’ past military service in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Gulf War.
(e) California’s county veterans service officers are the initial local point of contact for claimants accessing the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
(f) California’s veteran benefits delivery model is similar to many other states that have a close partnership between the state and the county veterans service officers. These county veteran service officers are the “boots on the ground” and act as the distributed network for outreach, claim initiation, and development.
(g) A California Department of Veterans Affairs report to the Legislature in 2007 titled, “Strategies to Improve California’s Utilization of Veteran Benefits,” noted that in comparison to Florida and Texas, two other states with comparable veterans populations, California could increase federal benefits into the state if it put more trained, professional veteran service representatives in the field. This finding was also supported by independent research.
(h) Performance metrics gathered from when county veterans service officer funding was first authorized shows a direct correlation between increased state funding for new hires and increased monetary benefits for veterans.
(i) The cost of maintaining county veterans service officers are shared between county general funds and state reimbursement to the counties. In 1997, in order to track performance, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill 608, which required the California Department of Veterans Affairs to annually report the amount of monetary benefits paid to veterans by the federal government that are attributable to the assistance of county veterans service officers. Senate Bill 608 also required the Department of Finance to consider an increase in the annual budget for county veterans service officers of up to $5 million, if approved in the annual budget process. In 2009, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill 419, which raised this amount to $11 million, if approved in the annual budget process.
(j) As a result of this annual reporting, by the end of 2016, it was determined that from 1995 to 2016, inclusive, the state had cumulatively budgeted $58.2 million for its share of the cost of the county veterans service officers. As a result of this investment, county veterans service officers were able to assist local veterans in obtaining $5.4 billion in new federal moneys. This is a return of about $93 for every $1 the state allocates to county veterans service officers. Furthermore, the $5.4 billion only reflects the actual monetary benefits qualified for in a given year. The monetary benefits qualified for in prior years are not tracked, and yet veterans and their dependents may continue to receive those benefits for the rest of their lives. Added to this stellar return on the state’s investment, but not counted in the annual reporting, are the Medi-Cal cost avoidance savings incurred as a result of county veterans service officers qualifying and shifting veterans away from Medi-Cal and into the appropriate federal veterans program.
(k) County veterans service officers accomplished all of this without ever reaching the allowable state budget allocation of $11 million set in 2009. To date, county veterans service officers have not received more than $5.6 million per year from the state.
(l) It is critical that the county veterans service officers receive a steady stream of funding because there continues to be a large number of underserved veterans and dependents who are not aware of the federal benefits available to them as a result of their military service. Studies from other states show that increases in county veterans service officers result in larger amounts of federal moneys to veterans. These new federal moneys and benefits are paid directly from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to the qualifying veterans or their dependents and are used in the local economy.