We believe that our nation is nearing an important inflection point where we have achieved sustainable momentum that ensures the “Sea of Goodwill” does not turn into an “ocean of apathy.” This chapter highlights that recent veterans’ initiatives have set the conditions for an inflection point; analyzes recent trends; and offers recommendations to help institutionalize the momentum achieved over the past several years. In particular, we focus on the development of a more “veteran-centric” approach at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the advent of a formal life cycle approach in the Department of Defense, emerging public-private partnerships, and the contributions of the private sector to supporting the reintegration needs of veterans. Our recommendations focus on sustaining and supporting robust collaborations between government and nongovernmental partners in the future.

1. 1.

   The terms “reintegration trinity” and “well-being” are used broadly here; the authors fully acknowledge the complex nature of veteran reintegration and understand that veteran needs do not always fit neatly into these three categories. Generally, well-being elements include career, community, financial, physical, and social. For a good examination of the multidimensional nature of veteran wellness as it relates to successful reintegration, see, for instance, Berglass, N. and M. C. Harrell,Well After Service: Veteran Reintegration and American Communities, 2012; Schell, T. L. and T. Tanielian [Eds.],A Needs Assessment of New York State Veterans: Final Report to the New York State Health Foundation, 2011; and Werber, L., A.G. Schaefer, K.C. Osilla, E. Wilke, A. Wong, J. Breslau, and K.E. Kitchens,Support for the twenty-first Century Reserve Force: Insights on Facilitating Successful Reintegration for Citizen Warriors and Their Families [Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 2013]. For additional sources of veteran reintegration literature, visit University of Southern California’s Center for Innovation and Research on Veterans and Military Families,http://cir.usc.edu/publications (accessed 19 April 2016); and Purdue University’s Military Family Research Institute,https://www.mfri.purdue.edu/publications/reports.aspx (accessed 19 April 2016).

2. 2.

   Author’s note: We acknowledge this chapter focuses on the employment component of the “reintegration trinity” and does not adequately address all of the efforts across the vast veteran space. There are numerous progressive efforts across many sectors—e.g., higher education, the justice system, and community mobilization—that are not included within the scope of this chapter for practical reasons.

3. 3.

   U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,VA 2017 Budget Request: Fast Facts [Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016],http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2017-FastFactsVAsBudgetHighlights.pdf (accessed March 4, 2016). While the VA is expending more effort on culture-changing initiatives, like MyVA, to better serve veterans and their families, it is important to note that the vast majority of its budget is obligated for traditional healthcare. The VA 2017 budget request is $182.3 billion, 95% of which is slated for medical and mandatory benefits programs.

4. 4.

   While TAP-GPS does include an education track, the bulk of the curriculum is employment-centric. This is understandable as the program was redesigned in response to high veteran unemployment rates, Congressional bipartisan bills, and the Veteran Employment Initiative, Executive Order 13518 from 2009. Perhaps a more holistic approach is needed, one that addresses the “reintegration trinity” of employment, education, and well-being. A TAP-GPS requirement, transitioning service members must complete several Career Readiness Standards to be determined as prepared for a civilian career. Instead of focusing on being “career” ready, perhaps a more comprehensive approach would require transitioning service members to meet “Civilian Readiness Standards.”

5. 5.

   For more information on Boots to Business, visit SBA’s web site at:https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/ovbd/resources/160511 (accessed April 5, 2016).

6. 6.

   In FY2015, the services funded over 55,000 civilian occupational credentials according to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness).

7. 7.

   As highlighted in a recent CNAS report, “the true engine of economic opportunity for veterans is the private sector, not government.” It makes sense, then, that the private sector take the lead in certain areas like employment since the private sector hires 98% of the civilian workers in America. Phillip Carter et al.,Passing the Baton: A Bipartisan 2016 Agenda for the Veteran and Military Community [Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2015], 16,http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport_PassingtheBaton_151104_final.pdf(accessed March 7, 2016).

8. 8.

   For more on these efforts, visit: Institute for Veterans and Military Families America Serves,http://vets.syr.edu/americaserves-a-community-discussion-on-investing-in-collective-impact-strategies-supporting-americas-transitioning-servicemembers-veterans-and-their-families/; America’s Warrior Partnership,http://americaswarriorpartnership.org/; USO Transition 360,https://www.uso.org/programs/uso-transition-360-alliance-overview; and United Way Mission United,https://www.unitedway.org/blog/mission-united-connects-veterans-with-critical-help

9. 9.

   For a practical treatment on the importance of trusting relationships, read Stephen M.R. Covey’sThe Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything. New York: The Free Press, 2006.

10. 10.

    Cynthia L. Gilman, JD,The Veteran Metrics Initiative (TVMI): Learning What Works for Veterans and their Families [Bethesda, MD: Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., 2013],http://rwtf.defense.gov/Portals/22/Documents/Meetings/m19/041tvmi.pdf (accessed February 29, 2016). The Veterans Metric Initiative, led by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, is an example of a research effort that proposes to measure evidence-based outcomes of veteran reintegration programs.

11. 11.

    Efforts are already underway to make this recommendation a reality sooner than later. In November 2015, VA Secretary McDonald announced a strategic alliance with the Bob Woodruff Foundation to establish a “single front door” to better connect veterans and their families to services and programs in their communities,http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2740 (accessed 10 March 2016).

12. 12.

    A 2010 report by DoD’s Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies suggests that the propensity for military service among America’s youth declines for myriad factors, including the declining number of US veterans who positively affect recruitment, and increasing educational attainment by America’s youth. This decline in military propensity will likely continue to present recruiting challenges for the all-volunteer force.http://jamrs.defense.gov/Portals/20/Documents/Youth_Poll_20.pdf (accessed 10 March 2016).

13. 13.

    Author’s note: We used the word “stakeholder” consistently throughout this chapter since it is commonly quoted within the veteran space; going forward, perhaps we should endeavor to replace “stakeholder” with “shareholder” in the veteran transition and reintegration lexicon. Shareholder conveysownership of, more than simplyinterest in, veteran reintegration.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Defense, US Army, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, USA

   Jillian Bourque, Christopher Forsythe, Christian Johnson, Robin Johnson & Michael Lawson

2. Department of Defense, US Marine Corps, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, USA

   Brian Gilman

3. Department of Defense, US Air Force, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, USA

   Sean Jones & Jason Schmidt

Corresponding author

Correspondence toChristian Johnson.

Editors and Affiliations

1. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Military Family Research Institute College of Health and Human Sciences Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

   Linda Hughes-Kirchubel

2. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Military Family Research Institute, College of Health and Human Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

   Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth

3. Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

   David S. Riggs

Reprints and permissions

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

Policies and ethics