VA studies employment gaps among post-9/11 women Veterans - VA News

Lt Col Charlie Brown wow, I did not know this, you would think the playing field is level nowadays. Still more work to do in America IMHO.

This repentant old HR wienie, proud of having increased the vet presence in my last company from 9% to 27%, has thoughts. My own experience with the AZ VA and the DMAFB TAP programs hopes that this new push is not just another "appearances sake" program chasing grant funds. The VA, and TAP programs generally, should rely less on consultants and biased generalized groups such as SHRM, and more on actual industry associations to target their programs. I dealt with SAHBA, AFMA, NKBA, among others. They all have specific, quantifyable needs.
Mike Rowe also has a great model. VA too often misses the mark in spite of the huge monies involved.
Anecdote: We had a booth at a large Job Fair in Phoenix. I was wandering around checking out the competition. The VA bus delivered a load of clients. After a bit my Generalist found me saying she was having trouble with the Vets disclosing medical info. They were beginning the conversation with "Do you hire vets with PTSD?". They said they had been advised to do so by their counselor. I spoke with her. A social worker younger than half the contents of my sock drawer. We had a long talk about the predicament that puts both the applicant and employer in In short, she, and her upline, had little knowledge of labor law.

I question the study, the statistics, and the premise.

I am not saying there is no problem. I am saying neither the article nor what it says about the study it cites convinces me that there is one.

The study was a self-selecting survey of 324 female post-9/11 veterans. 324 is not nearly enough to be considered representative. Especially when they are self-selecting. Employment - especially in a high paying job requiring 45 - 60 hours a week - naturally reduces one's ability or inclination to participate. It also reduces one's idle time to even find out about the survey.

Additionally, females across society - in all cultures and income levels - have a lower job force participation rate than males. Saying that women vets have a lower participation rate than male vets is a VA problem is erroneous. Now, if there is a significant difference between male and female vets as compared to male and female civilians, THEN it MAY be a VA problem. I would still look for the study to be controlled for age, marital status and income (including disability income, which is exempted from most income calculations), though.

Again, I am not saying the problem does not exist. But the article appears to be comparing apples to oranges, then to potatoes, then kumquats. Then it ties it all together by comparing the cost of golden delicious apples and honeycrisp apples and claiming a problem when they aren't the same. This is the problem with statistics - if you aren't honest you can make them say anything. (And citing a study without giving access to it, or publishing a study without giving access to the raw data are hallmarks of dishonesty in research and reporting. Guess what was not included in this reporting?)

All that being said, if there is a cost effective way to help ANY segment of veterans have better employment outcomes, without neglecting other segments, I am all for it.