Suchergebnisse

Almost four years since the onset of the global financial and economic crisis, unemployment and underemployment remain stubbornly high in many G20 countries, and many workers remain trapped in low paid, often informal, jobs with little social protection. Job creation has been anemic in many countries, too slow to fully reabsorb the mass of unemployed and underemployed or, particularly in some emerging market economies, to keep pace with labour force growth and the pressures of rural-urban migration. This raises concerns about the long-term negative effects on human capital, growing inequality and lower future output growth. The political pressures are high, and the risk of a drift towards protectionist measures aimed at 'keeping jobs at home' cannot be ignored. While there is substantial variation in national contexts, G20 countries can help minimize these risks through collective and collaborative work aimed at identifying and implementing credible policy reforms that will boost job creation, employment and the quality of jobs. The report aims at providing a preliminary review of countries' experiences against the backdrop of an evolving economic outlook and could form the basis of a more in-depth analysis, should Ministers request it. Improving labour market outcomes involves several challenges relating to both the quantity and quality aspects of job creation. There is a need in all countries to harness growth to generate labour market opportunities that correspond to labour force growth.

This post takes up from two previous posts (part 1;  part 2), asking just what do we (we economists) really know about how interest rates affect inflation. Today, what does contemporary economic theory say? As you may recall, the standard story says that the Fed raises interest rates; inflation (and expected inflation) don't immediately jump up, so real interest rates rise; with some lag, higher real interest rates push down employment and output (IS); with some more lag, the softer economy leads to lower prices and wages (Phillips curve). So higher interest rates lower future inflation, albeit with "long and variable lags." Higher interest rates -> (lag) lower output, employment -> (lag) lower inflation. In part 1, we saw that it's not easy to see that story in the data. In part 2, we saw that half a century of formal empirical work also leaves that conclusion on very shaky ground. As they say at the University of Chicago, "Well, so much for the real world, how does it work in theory?" That is an important question. We never really believe things we don't have a theory for, and for good reason. So, today, let's look at what modern theory has to say about this question. And they are not unrelated questions. Theory has been trying to replicate this story for decades. The answer: Modern (anything post 1972) theory really does not support this idea. The standard new-Keynesian model does not produce anything like the standard story.  Models that modify that simple model to achieve something like result of the standard story do so with a long list of complex ingredients. The new ingredients are not just sufficient, they are (apparently) necessary to produce the desired dynamic pattern. Even these models do not  implement the verbal logic above. If the pattern that high interest rates lower inflation over a few years is true, it is by a completely different mechanism than the story tells. I conclude that we don't have a simple economic model that produces the standard belief. ("Simple" and "economic" are important qualifiers.) The simple new-Keynesian model The central problem comes from the Phillips curve. The modern Phillips curve asserts that price-setters are forward-looking. If they know inflation will be high next year, they raise prices now. So Inflation today = expected inflation next year + (coefficient) x output gap.  \[\pi_t = E_t\pi_{t+1} + \kappa x_t\](If you know enough to complain about \(\beta\approx0.99\) in front of \(E_t\pi_{t+1}\) you know enough that it doesn't matter for the issues here.)Now, if the Fed raises interest rates, and if (if) that lowers output or raises unemployment, inflation today goes down. The trouble is, that's not what we're looking for. Inflation goes down today, (\(\pi_t\))relative to expected inflation next year (\(E_t\pi_{t+1}\)). So a higher interest rate and lower output correlate with inflation that is rising over time.    Here is a concrete example: The plot is the response of the standard three equation new-Keynesian model to an \(\varepsilon_1\) shock at time 1:\[\begin{align} x_t &= E_t x_{t+1} - \sigma(i_t - E_t\pi_{t+1}) \\ \pi_t & = \beta E_t \pi_{t+1} + \kappa x_t \\ i_t &= \phi \pi_t + u_t \\ u_t &= \eta u_{t-1} + \varepsilon_t. \end{align}\] Here \(x\) is output, \(i\) is the interest rate, \(\pi\) is inflation, \(\eta=0.6\), \(\sigma=1\), \(\kappa=0.25\), \(\beta=0.95\), \(\phi=1.2\). In this plot, higher interest rates are said to lower inflation. But they lower inflation immediately, on the day of the interest rate shock. Then, as explained above, inflation rises over time. In the standard view, and the empirical estimates from the last post, a higher interest rate has no immediate effect, and then future inflation is lower. See plots in the last post, or this one from Romer and Romer's 2023 summary:Inflation jumping down and then rising in the future is quite different from inflation that does nothing immediately, might even rise for a few months, and then starts gently going down. You might even wonder about the downward jump in inflation. The Phillips curve makes it clear why current inflation is lower than expected future inflation, but why doesn't current inflation stay the same, or even rise, and expected future inflation rise more? That's the "equilibrium selection" issue. All those paths are possible, and you need extra rules to pick a particular one. Fiscal theory points out that the downward jump needs a fiscal tightening, so represents a joint monetary-fiscal policy. But we don't argue about that today. Take the standard new Keynesian model exactly as is, with passive fiscal policy and standard equilibrium selection rules. It predicts that inflation jumps down immediately and then rises over time. It does not predict that inflation slowly declines over time.  This is not a new issue. Larry Ball (1994) first  pointed out that the standard new Keynesian Phillips curve says that output is high when inflation is high relative to expected future inflation, that is when inflation is declining. Standard beliefs  go the other way: output is high when inflation is rising.  The IS curve is a key part of the overall prediction, and output faces a similar problem. I just assumed above that output falls when interest rates rise. In the model it does; output follows a path with the same shape as inflation in my little plot. Output also jumps down and then rises over time. Here too, the (much stronger) empirical evidence says that an interest rate rise does not change output immediately, and output then falls rather than rises over time. The intuition has even clearer economics behind it: Higher real interest rates induce people to consume less today and more tomorrow. Higher real interest rates should go with higher, not lower, future consumption growth. Again, the model only apparently reverses the sign by having output jump down before rising. Key issuesHow can we be here, 40 years later, and the benchmark textbook model so utterly does not replicate standard beliefs about monetary policy? One answer, I believe, is confusing adjustment to equilibrium with equilibrium dynamics. The model generates inflation lower than yesterday (time 0 to time 1) and lower than it otherwise would be (time 1 without shock vs time 1 with shock). Now, all economic models are a bit stylized. It's easy to say that when we add various frictions, "lower than yesterday" or "lower than it would have been" is a good parable for "goes down over time."  If in a simple supply and demand graph we say that an increase in demand raises prices instantly, we naturally understand that as a parable for a drawn out period of price increases once we add appropriate frictions. But dynamic macroeconomics doesn't work that way. We have already added what was supposed to be the central friction, sticky prices. Dynamic economics is supposed to describe the time-path of variables already, with no extra parables. If adjustment to equilibrium takes time, then model that.  The IS and Phillips curve are forward looking, like stock prices. It would make little sense to say "news comes out that the company will never make money, so the stock price should decline gradually over a few years." It should jump down now. Inflation and output behave that way in the standard model. A second confusion, I think, is between sticky prices and sticky inflation. The new-Keynesian model posits, and a huge empirical literature examines, sticky prices. But that is not the same thing as sticky inflation. Prices can be arbitrarily sticky and inflation, the first derivative of prices, can still jump. In the Calvo model, imagine that only a tiny fraction of firms can change prices at each instant. But when they do, they will change prices a lot, and the overall price level will start increasing right away. In the continuous-time version of the model, prices are continuous (sticky), but inflation jumps at the moment of the shock.  The standard story wants sticky inflation. Many authors explain the new-Keynesian model with sentences like "the Fed raises interest rates. Prices are sticky, so inflation can't go up right away and real interest rates are higher." This is wrong. Inflation can rise right away. In the standard new-Keynesian model it does so with \(\eta=1\), for any amount of price stickiness. Inflation rises immediately with a persistent monetary policy shock. Just get it out of your heads. The standard model does not produce the standard story. The obvious response is, let's add ingredients to the standard model and see if we can modify the response function to look something like the common beliefs and VAR estimates. Let's go. Adaptive expectations We can reproduce standard beliefs about monetary policy with thoroughly adaptive expectations, in the 1970s ISLM form. I think this is a large part of what  most policy makers and commenters have in mind.  Modify the above model to leave out the dynamic part of the intertemporal substitution equation, to just say in rather ad hoc way that higher real interest rates lower output, and specify that the expected inflation that drives the real rate and that drives pricing decisions is mechanically equal to previous inflation, \(E_t \pi_{t+1} = \pi_{t-1}\). We get \[ \begin{align} x_t &= -\sigma (i_t - \pi_{t-1}) \\ \pi_t & = \pi_{t-1} + \kappa x_t .\end{align}\] We can solve this sytsem analytically to \[\pi_t = (1+\sigma\kappa)\pi_{t-1} - \sigma\kappa i_t.\]Here's what happens if the Fed permanently raises the interest rate. Higher interest rates send future inflation down. (\(\kappa=0.25,\ \sigma=1.\)) Inflation eventually spirals away, but central banks don't leave interest rates alone forever. If we add a Taylor rule response \(i_t = \phi \pi_t + u_t\),  so the central bank reacts to the emerging spiral, we get this response to a permanent monetary policy disturbance \(u_t\): The higher interest rate sets off a deflation spiral. But the Fed quickly follows inflation down to stabilize the situation. This is, I think, the conventional story of the 1980s. In terms of ingredients, an apparently minor change of index from \(E_t \pi_{t+1}\) to \(\pi_{t-1}\) is in fact a big change. It means directly that higher output comes with increasing inflation, not decreasing inflation, solving Ball's puzzle.  The change basically changes the sign of output in the Phillips curve. Again, it's not really all in the Phillips curve. This model with rational expectations in the IS equation and adaptive in the Phillips curve produces junk. To get the result you need adaptive expectations everywhere. The adaptive expectations model gets the desired result by changing the basic sign and stability properties of the model. Under rational expectations the model is stable; inflation goes away all on its own under an interest rate peg. With adaptive expectations, the model is unstable. Inflation or deflation spiral away under an interest rate peg or at the zero bound. The Fed's job is like balancing a broom upside down. If you move the bottom (interest rates) one way, the broom zooms off the other way. With rational expectations, the model is stable, like a pendulum.  This is not a small wrinkle designed to modify dynamics. This is major surgery. It is also a robust property: small changes in parameters do not change the dominant eigenvalue of a model from over one to less than one.  A more refined way to capture how Fed officials and pundits think and talk might be called "temporarily fixed expectations." Policy people do talk about the modern Phillips curve; they say inflation depends on inflation expectations and employment. Expectations are not mechanically adaptive. Expectations are a third force, sometimes "anchored," and amenable to manipulation by speeches and dot plots. Crucially, in this analysis, expected inflation does not move when the Fed changes interest rates.  Expectations are then  very slowly adaptive, if inflation is persistent, or if there is a more general loss of faith in "anchoring." In the above new-Keynesian model graph, at the minute the Fed raises the interest rate, expected inflation jumps up to follow the graph's plot of the model's forecast of inflation. As a simple way to capture these beliefs, suppose expectations are fixed or "anchored" at \(\pi^e\). Then my simple model is \[\begin{align}x_t & = -\sigma(i_t - \pi^e) \\ \pi_t & = \pi^e + \kappa x_t\end{align}\]so \[\pi_t = \pi^e - \sigma \kappa (i_t - \pi^e).\] Inflation is expected inflation, and lowered by higher interest rates (last - sign). But those rates need only be higher than the fixed expectations; they do not need to be higher than past rates as they do in the adaptive expectations model. That's why the Fed thinks 3% interest rates with 5% inflation is still "contractionary"--expected inflation remains at 2%, not the 5% of recent adaptive experience.  Also by fixing expectations, I remove the instability of the adaptive expectations model... so long as those expectations stay anchored. The Fed recognizes that eventually higher inflation moves the expectations, and with a belief that is adaptive, they fear that an inflation spiral can still break out.Even this view does not give us any lags, however. The Fed and commenters clearly believe that higher real interest rates today lower output next year, not immediately; and they believe that lower output and employment today drive inflation down in the future, not immediately. They believe something like \[\begin{align}x_{t+1} &= - \sigma(i_t - \pi^e) \\ \pi_{t+1} &= \pi^e + \kappa x_t.\end{align}\] But now we're at the kind of non-economic ad-hockery that the whole 1970s revolution abandoned. And for a reason: Ad hoc models are unstable, regimes are always changing. Moreover, let me remind you of our quest: Is there a simple economic model of monetary policy that generates something like the standard view? At this level of ad-hockery you might as well just write down the coefficients of Romer and Romer's response function and call that the model of how interest rates affect inflation.  Academic economics gave up on mechanical expectations and ad-hoc models in the 1970s. You can't publish a paper with this sort of model. So when I mean a "modern" model, I mean  rational expectations, or at least the consistency condition that the expectations in the model are not fundamentally different from forecasts of the model. (Models with explicit learning or other expectation-formation frictions count too.) It's easy to puff about people aren't rational, and looking out the window lots of people do dumb things. But if we take that view, then the whole project of monetary policy on the proposition that people are fundamentally unable to learn patterns in the economy, that a benevolent Federal Reserve can trick the poor little souls into a better outcome.  And somehow the Fed is the lone super-rational actor who can avoid all those pesky behavioral biases. We are looking for the minimum necessary ingredients to describe the basic signs and function of monetary policy. A bit of irrational or complex expectation formation as icing on the cake, a possible sufficient ingredient to produce quantitatively realistic dynamics, isn't awful. But it would be sad if irrational expectations or other behavior is a necessary ingredient to get the most basic sign and story of monetary policy right. If persistent irrationality is a central necessary ingredient for the basic sign and operation of monetary policy -- if higher interest rates will raise inflation the minute people smarten up; if there is no simple supply and demand, MV=PY sensible economics underlying the basic operation of monetary policy; if it's all a conjuring trick  -- that should really weaken our faith in the whole monetary policy project.  Facts help, and we don't have to get religious about it. During the long zero bound, the same commentators and central bankers kept warning about a deflation spiral, clearly predicted by this model. It never happened. Interest rates below inflation from 2021 to 2023 should have led to an upward inflation spiral. It never happened -- inflation eased all on its own with interest rates below inflation.Getting the desired response to interest rates by making the model unstable isn't tenable whether or not you like the ingredient.  Inflation also surged in the 1970s faster than adaptive expectations came close to predicting, and fell faster in the 1980s.  The ends of many inflations come with credible changes in regime. There is a lot of work now desperately trying to fix new-Keynesian models by making them more old-Keynesian, putting lagged inflation in the Phillips curve, current income in the IS equation, and so forth. Complex learning and expectation formation stories replace the simplistic adaptive expectations here. As far as I can tell, to the extent they work they largely do so in the same way, by reversing the basic stability of the model. Modifying the new-Keynesian modelThe alternative is to add ingredients to the basic new-Keynesian model, maintaining its insistence on real "micro-founded" economics and forward-looking behavior, and describing explicit dynamics as the evolution of equilibrium quantities.  Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans (2005) is one of the most famous examples. Recall these same authors  created the first most influential VAR that gave the "right" answer to the effects of monetary policy shocks. This paper modifies the standard new-Keynesian model with a specific eye to matching impulse response functions. The want to match all impulse-responses, with a special focus on output. When I started asking my young macro colleagues for a standard model which produces the desired response shape, they still cite CEE first, though it's 20 years later. That's quite an accomplishment. I'll look at it in detail, as the general picture is the same as many other models that achieve the desired result. Here's their bottom line response to a monetary policy shock: (Figure from the 2018 Christiano Eichenbaum and Trabandt Journal of Economic Perspectives summary paper.)  The solid line is the VAR point estimate and gray shading is the 95% confidence band. The solid blue line is the main model. The dashed line is the model with only price stickiness, to emphasize the importance of wage stickiness. The shock happens at time 0. Notice the funds rate line that jumps down at that date. That the other lines do not move at time 0 is a result. I graphed the response to a time 1 shock above. That's the answer, now what's the question? What ingredients did they add above the textbook model to reverse the basic sign and jump problem and to produce  these pretty pictures? Here is a partial list: Habit formation. The utility function is  \(log(c_t - bc_{t-1})\). A capital stock with adjustment costs in investment.  Adjustment costs are proportional to investment growth, \([1-S(i_t/i_{t-1})]i_t\), rather than the usual formulation in which adjustment costs are proportional to the investment to capital ratio \(S(i_t/k_t)i_t\). Variable capital utilization. Capital services \(k_t\) are related to the capital stock \(\bar{k}t\) by \(k_t = u_t \bar{k}_t\). The utilization rate \(u_t\) is set by households facing an upward sloping cost \(a(u_t)\bar{k}_t\).Calvo pricing with indexation: Firms randomly get to reset prices, but firms that aren't allowed to reset prices do automatically raise prices at the rate of inflation.Prices are also fixed for a quarter. Technically, firms must post prices before they see the period's shocks.Sticky wages, also with indexation. Households are monopoly suppliers of labor, and set wages Calvo-style like firms. (Later papers put all households into a union which does the wage setting.) Wages are also indexed; Households that don't get to reoptimize their wage still raise wages following inflation. Firms must borrow working capital to finance their wage bill a quarter in advance, and thus pay a interest on the wage bill. Money in the utility function, and money supply control. Monetary policy is a change in the money growth rate, not a pure interest rate target. Whew! But which of these ingredients are necessary, and which are just sufficient? Knowing the authors, I  strongly suspect that they are all necessary to get the suite of results. They don't add ingredients for show. But they want to match all of the impulse response functions, not just the inflation response. Perhaps a simpler set of ingredients could generate the inflation response while missing some of the others. Let's understand what each of these ingredients is doing, which will help us to see (if) they are necessary and essential to getting the desired result. I see a common theme in habit formation, adjustment costs that scale by investment growth, and indexation. These ingredients each add a derivative; they take a standard relationship between levels of economic variables and change it to one in growth rates. Each of consumption, investment, and inflation is a "jump variable" in standard economics, like stock prices. Consumption (roughly) jumps to the present value of future income. The level of investment is proportional to the stock price in the standard q theory, and jumps when there is new information. Iterating forward the new-Keynesian Phillips curve \(\pi_t = \beta E_t \pi_{t+1} + \kappa x_t\), inflation jumps to the discounted sum of future output gaps, \(\pi_t = E_t \sum_{j=0}^\infty \beta^jx_{t+j}.\)  To produce responses in which output, consumption and investment as well as inflation rise slowly after a shock, we don't want levels of consumption, investment, and inflation to jump this way. Instead we want growth rates to do so. With standard utility, the consumer's linearized first order condition equates expected consumption growth to the interest rate, \( E_t (c_{t+1}/c_t) = \delta + r_t \) Habit, with \(b=1\) gives  \( E_t [(c_{t+1}-c_t)/(c_t-c_{t-1})] = \delta + r_t \). (I left out the strategic terms.) Mixing logs and levels a bit, you can see we put a growth rate in place of a level. (The paper has \(b=0.65\) .) An investment adjustment cost function with \(S(i_t/i_{t-1})\) rather than the standard \(S(i_t/k_t)\) puts a derivative in place of a level. Normally we tell a story that if you want a house painted, doubling the number of painters doesn't get the job done twice as fast because they get in each other's way. But you can double the number of painters overnight if you want to do so. Here the cost is on the increase in number of painters each day.   Indexation results in a Phillips curve with a lagged inflation term, and that gives "sticky inflation."  The Phillips curve of the model (32) and (33) is \[\pi_t = \frac{1}{1+\beta}\pi_{t-1} + \frac{\beta}{1+\beta}E_{t-1}\pi_{t+1} + (\text{constants}) E_{t-1}s_t\]where \(s_t\) are marginal costs (more later). The \(E_{t-1}\) come from the assumption that prices can't react to time \(t\) information. Iterate that forward to (33)\[\pi_t - \pi_{t-1} = (\text{constants}) E_{t-1}\sum_{j=0}^\infty \beta^j s_{t+j}.\] We have successfully put the change in inflation in place of the level of inflation. The Phillips curve is anchored by real marginal costs, and they are not proportional to output in this model as they are in the textbook model above. That's important too. Instead,\[s_t = (\text{constants}) (r^k_t)^\alpha \left(\frac{W_t}{P_t}R_t\right)^{1-\alpha}\] where \(r^k\) is the return to capital \(W/P\) is the real wage and \(R\) is the nominal interest rate. The latter term crops up from the assumption that firms must borrow the wage bill one period in advance. This is an interesting ingredient. There is a lot of talk that higher interest rates raise costs for firms, and they are reducing output as a result. That might get us around some of the IS curve problems. But that's not how it works here. Here's how I think it works. Higher interest rates raise marginal costs, and thus push up current inflation relative to expected future inflation. The equilibrium-selection rules and the rule against instant price changes (coming up next) tie down current inflation, so the higher interest rates have to push down expected future inflation. CEE disagree (p. 28). Writing of an interest rate decline, so all the signs are opposite of my stories,  ... the interest rate appears in firms' marginal cost. Since the interest rate drops after an expansionary monetary policy shock, the model embeds a force that pushes marginal costs down for a period of time. Indeed, in the estimated benchmark model the effect is strong enough to induce a transient fall in inflation.But pushing marginal costs down lowers current inflation relative to future inflation -- they're looking at the same Phillips curve just above. It looks to me like they're confusing current with expected future inflation. Intuition is hard. There are plenty of Fisherian forces in this model that want lower interest rates to lower inflation. More deeply,  we see here a foundational trouble of the Phillips curve. It was originally a statistical relation between wage inflation and unemployment. It became a (weaker) statistical relation between price inflation and unemployment or the output gap. The new-Keynesian theory wants naturally to describe a relation between marginal costs and price changes, and it takes contortions to make output equal to marginal costs. Phillips curves fit the data terribly. So authors estimating Phillips curves (An early favorite by Tim Cogley and Argia Sbordone) go back, and separate marginal cost from output or employment. As CET write later, they "build features into the model which ensure that firms' marginal costs are nearly acyclical." That helps the fit, but it divorces the Phillips curve shifter variable from the business cycle! Standard doctrine says that for the Fed to lower inflation it must soften the economy and risk unemployment. Doves say don't do it, live with inflation to avoid that cost. Well, if the Phillips curve shifter is "acyclical" you have to throw all that out the window.  This shift also points to the central conundrum of the Phillips curve. Here it describes the adjustment of prices to wages or "costs" more generally. It fundamentally describes a relative price, not a price level. OK, but the phenomenon we want to explain is the common component, how all prices and wage tie together or equivalently the decline in the value of the currency, stripped of relative price movements. The central puzzle of macroeconomics is why the common component, a rise or fall of all prices and wages together, has anything to do with output, and for us how it is controlled by the Fed. Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans write (p.3) that "it is crucial to allow for variable capital utilization." I'll try explain  why in my own words. Without capital adjustment costs, any change in the real return leads to a big investment jump. \(r=f'(k)\) must jump and that takes a lot of extra \(k\). We add adjustment costs to tamp down the investment response. But now when there is any shock, capital can't adjust enough and there is a big rate of return response. So we need something that acts like a big jump in the capital stock to tamp down \(r=f'(k)\) variability, but not a big investment jump. Variable capital utilization acts like the big investment jump without us seeing a big investment jump. And all this is going to be important for inflation too. Remember the Phillips curve; if output jumps then inflation jumps too. Sticky wages are crucial, and indeed CEE report that they can dispense with sticky prices. One reason is that otherwise profits are countercyclical. In a boom, prices go up faster than wages so profits go up. With sticky prices and flexible wages you get the opposite sign. It's interesting that the "textbook" model has not moved this way. Again, we don't often enough write textbooks. Fixing prices and wages during the period of the shock by assuming price setters can't see the shock for a quarter has a direct effect: It stops any price or wage jumps during the quarter of the shock, as in my first graph. That's almost cheating. Note the VAR also has absolutely zero instantaneous inflation response. This too is by assumption. They "orthogonalize" the variables so that all the contemporaneous correlation between monetary policy shocks and inflation or output is considered part of the Fed's "rule" and none of it reflects within-quarter reaction of prices or quantities to the Fed's actions. Step back and admire. Given the project "find elaborations of the standard new-Keynesian model to match VAR impulse response functions" could you have come up with any of this? But back to our task. That's a lot of apparently necessary ingredients. And reading here or CEE's verbal intuition, the logic of this model is nothing like the standard simple intuition, which includes none of the necessary ingredients. Do we really need all of this to produce the basic pattern of monetary policy? As far as we know, we do. And hence, that pattern may not be as robust as it seems. For all of these ingredients are pretty, ... imaginative. Really, we are a long way from the Lucas/Prescott vision that macroeconomic models should be based on well tried and measured microeconomic ingredients that are believably invariant to changes in the policy regime. CEE argue hard for the plausibility of these microeconomic specifications (see especially the later CET Journal of Economic Perspectives article), but they have to try so hard precisely because the standard literature doesn't have any of these ingredients. The "level" rather than "growth rate" foundations of consumption, investment, and pricing decisions pervade microeconomics. Microeconomists worry about labor monopsony, not labor monopoly; firms set wages, households don't. (Christiano Eichenbam and Trabandt (2016) get wage stickiness from a more realistic search and matching model. Curiously, the one big labor union fiction is still the most common, though few private sector workers are unionized.) Firms don't borrow the wage bill a quarter ahead of time.  Very few prices and wages are indexed in the US. Like habits, perhaps these ingredients are simple stand ins for something else, but at some point we need to know what that something else is. That is especially true if one wants to do optimal policy or welfare analysis. Just how much economics must we reinvent to match this one response function? How far are we really from the ad-hoc ISLM equations that Sims (1980) destroyed? Sadly, subsequent literature doesn't help much (more below). Subsequent literature has mostly added ingredients, including heterogeneous agents (big these days), borrowing constraints, additional financial frictions (especially after 2008), zero bound constraints, QE, learning and complex expectations dynamics. (See CET 2018 JEP  for a good verbal survey.) The rewards in our profession go to those who add a new ingredient. It's very hard to publish papers that strip a model down to its basics. Editors don't count that as "new research," but just "exposition" below the prestige of their journals. Though boiling a model down to essentials is maybe more important in the end than adding more bells and whistles. This is about where we are. Despite the pretty response functions, I still score that we don't have a reliable, simple, economic model that produces the standard view of monetary policy. Mankiw and Reis, sticky expectations Mankiw and Reis (2002) expressed the challenge clearly over 20 years ago. In reference to the "standard" New-Keynesian Phillips curve \(\pi_t = \beta E_t \pi_{t+1} + \kappa x_t\) they write a beautiful and succinct paragraph: Ball [1994a] shows that the model yields the surprising result that announced, credible disinflations cause booms rather than recessions. Fuhrer and Moore [1995] argue that it cannot explain why inflation is so persistent. Mankiw [2001] notes that it has trouble explaining why shocks to monetary policy have a delayed and gradual effect on inflation. These problems appear to arise from the same source: although the price level is sticky in this model, the inflation rate can change quickly. By contrast, empirical analyses of the inflation process (e.g., Gordon [1997]) typically give a large role to "inflation inertia."At the cost of repetition, I emphasize the last sentence because it is so overlooked. Sticky prices are not sticky inflation. Ball already said this in 1994: Taylor (1979, 198) and Blanchard (1983, 1986) show that staggering produces inertia in the price level: prices just slowly to a fall in th money supply. ...Disinflation, however, is a change in the growth rate of money not a one-time shock to the level. In informal discussions, analysts often assume that the inertia result carries over from levels to growth rates -- that inflation adjusts slowly to a fall in money growth. As I see it, Mankiw and Reis generalize the Lucas (1972) Phillips curve. For Lucas, roughly, output is related to unexpected inflation\[\pi_t = E_{t-1}\pi_t + \kappa x_t.\] Firms don't see everyone else's prices in the period. Thus, when a firm sees an unexpected rise in prices, it doesn't know if it is a higher relative price or a higher general price level; the firm expands output based on how much it thinks the event might be a relative price increase.  I love this model for many reasons, but one, which seems to have fallen by the wayside, is that it explicitly founds the Phillips curve in firms' confusion about relative  prices vs. the price level, and thus faces up to the problem why should a rise in the price level have any real effects. Mankiw and Reis basically suppose that firms find out the general price level with lags, so output depends on inflation relative to a distributed lag of its expectations. It's clearest for the price level (p. 1300)\[p_t = \lambda\sum_{j=0}^\infty (1-\lambda)^j E_{t-j}(p_t + \alpha x_t).\] The inflation expression is \[\pi_t = \frac{\alpha \lambda}{1-\lambda}x_t + \lambda \sum_{j=0}^\infty (1-\lambda)^j E_{t-1-j}(\pi_t + \alpha \Delta x_t).\](Some of the complication is that you want it to be \(\pi_t = \sum_{j=0}^\infty E_{t-1-j}\pi_t + \kappa x_t\), but output doesn't enter that way.) This seems totally natural and sensible to me. What is a "period" anyway? It makes sense that firms learn heterogeneously whether a price increase is relative or price level. And it obviously solves the central persistence problem with the Lucas (1972) model, that it only produces a one-period output movement. Well, what's a period anyway? (Mankiw and Reis don't sell it this way, and actually don't cite Lucas at all. Curious.)  It's not immediately obvious that this curve solves the Ball puzzle and the declining inflation puzzle, and indeed one must put it in a full model to do so. Mankiw and Reis (2002) mix it with \(m_t + v = p_t + x_t\) and make some stylized analysis, but don't show how to put the idea in models such as I started with or make a plot.  Their less well known follow on paper  Sticky Information in General Equilibrium (2007) is much better for this purpose because they do show you how to put the idea in an explicit new-Keynesian model, like the one I started with.  They also add a Taylor rule, and an interest rate rather than money supply instrument, along with wage stickiness and a few other ingredients,. They show how to solve the model overcoming the problem that there are many lagged expectations as state variables. But here is the response to the monetary policy shock: Response to a Monetary Policy Shock, Mankiw and Reis (2007). Sadly they don't report how interest rates respond to the shock. I presume interest rates went down temporarily. Look: the inflation and output gap plots are about the same. Except for the slight delay going up, these are exactly the responses of the standard NK model. When output is high, inflation is high and declining.  The whole point was to produce a model in which high output level would correspond to rising inflation. Relative to the first graph, the main improvement is just a slight hump shape in both inflation and output responses. Describing the same model in "Pervasive Stickiness" (2006), Mankiw and Reis describe the desideratum well: The Acceleration Phenomenon....inflation tends to rise when the economy is booming and falls when economic activity is depressed. This is the central insight of the empirical literature on the Phillips curve. One simple way to illustrate this fact is to correlate the change in inflation, \(\pi_{t+2}-\pi_{t-2}\) with [the level of] output, \(y_t\), detrended with the HP filter. In U.S. quarterly data from 1954-Q3 to 2005-Q3, the correlation is 0.47. That is, the change in inflation is procyclical.Now look again at the graph. As far as I  can see, it's not there. Is this version of sticky inflation a bust, for this purpose? I still think it's a neat idea worth more exploration. But I thought so 20 years ago too.  Mankiw and Reis have a lot of citations but nobody followed them. Why not?  I suspect it's part of a general pattern that lots of great micro sticky price papers are not used because they don't produce an easy aggregate Phillips curve. If you want cites, make sure people can plug it in to Dynare. Mankiw and Reis' curve is pretty simple, but you still have to keep all past expectations around as a state variable. There may be alternative ways of doing that with modern computational technology, putting it in a Markov environment or cutting off the lags, everyone learns the price level after 5 years. Hank models have even bigger state spaces! Some more modelsWhat about within the Fed?  Chung,  Kiley, and  Laforte 2010, "Documentation of the Estimated, Dynamic, Optimization-based (EDO) Model of the U.S. Economy: 2010 Version" is one such model.  (Thanks to Ben Moll, in a lecture slide titled "Effects of interest rate hike in U.S. Fed's own New Keynesian model") They describe it as This paper provides documentation for a large-scale estimated DSGE model of the U.S. economy – the Federal Reserve Board's Estimated, Dynamic, Optimization- based (FRB/EDO) model project. The model can be used to address a wide range of practical policy questions on a routine basis.Here are the central plots for our purpose: The response of interest rates and inflation to a monetary policy shock.  No long and variable lags here. Just as in the simple model, inflation jumps down on the day of the shock and then reverts. As with Mankiw and Reis, there is a tiny hump shape, but that's it. This is nothing like the Romer and Romer plot. Smets and Wouters (2007) "Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach" is about as famous as Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans as a standard new-Keynesian model that supposedly matches data well. It "contains many shocks and frictions. It features sticky nominal price and wage settings that allow for backward inflation indexation, habit formation in consumption, and investment adjustment costs that create hump-shaped responses... and variable capital utilization and fixed costs in production"Here is their central graph of the response to a monetary policy shockAgain, there is a little hump-shape, but the overall picture is just like the one we started with. Inflation mostly jumps down immediately and then recovers; the interest rate shock leads to future inflation that is higher, not lower than current inflation. There are no lags from higher interest rates to future inflation declines. The major difference, I think, is that Smets and Wouters do not impose the restriction that inflation cannot jump immediately on either their theory or empirical work, and Christiano, Eichenbaum and Evans impose that restriction in both places. This is important. In a new-Keynesian model some combination of state variables must jump on the day of the shock, as it is only saddle-path stable. If inflation can't move right away, that means something else does. Therefore, I think, CEE also preclude inflation jumping the next period. Comparing otherwise similar ingredients, it looks like this is the key ingredient for producing Romer-Romer like responses consistent with the belief in sticky inflation. But perhaps the original model and Smets-Wouters are right! I do not know what happens if you remove the CEE orthogonalization restriction and allow inflation to jump on the day of the shock in the date. That would rescue the new-Keynesian model, but it would destroy the belief in sticky inflation and long and variable lags. Closing thoughtsI'll reiterate the main point. As far as I can tell, there is no simple economic model that produces the standard belief. Now, maybe belief is right and models just have to catch up. It is interesting that there is so little effort going on to do this. As above, the vast outpouring of new-Keynesian modeling has been to add even more ingredients. In part, again, that's the natural pressures of journal publication. But I think it's also an honest feeling that after Christiano Eichenbaun and Evans, this is a solved problem and adding other ingredients is all there is to do. So part of the point of this post (and "Expectations and the neutrality of interest rates") is to argue that this is not a solved problem, and that removing ingredients to find the simplest economic model that can produce standard beliefs is a really important task.  Then, does the model incorporate anything at all of the standard intuition, or is it based on some different mechanism al together? These are first order important and unresolved questions!But for my lay readers, here is as far as I know where we are. If you, like the Fed, hold to standard beliefs that higher interest rates lower future output and inflation with long and variable lags, know there is no simple economic theory behind that belief, and certainly the standard story is not how economic models of the last four decades work. Update:I repeat a response to a comment below, because it is so important. I probably wasn't clear enough that the "problem" of high output with inflation falling rather than rising is a problem of models vs. traditional beliefs, rather than of models vs. facts. The point of the sequence of posts, really, is that the traditional beliefs are likely wrong. Inflation does not fall, following interest rate increases, with dependable, long, and perhaps variable lags. That belief is strong, but neither facts, empirical evidence, or theory supports it. ("Variable" is a great way to scrounge data to make it fit priors.) Indeed many successful disinflations like ends of hyperinflations feature a sigh of relief and output surge on the real side. 

The study of the military veterans' experience in higher education has coincided with the history of the GI Bill® and the various iterations of the benefits of this program, beginning with the original version following WWII. With the latest version, the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, institutions of higher education have experienced the highest enrollment numbers of veterans since the conclusion of the Vietnam Conflict. Institutions have historically been reactive in support of new waves of veterans entering higher education. This study sought to gain the perspective of veterans, as to how the institutions have been serving veterans by creating a veteran friendly campus through the admission, enrollment, and veterans services processes. The study also sought to gather the veterans' perspective related to how well faculty and staff understand the military experience, and how well veterans have been integrated into the classroom environment and into higher education in general. In addition, the study sought to measure the perspective of veterans with disabilities and their specific experience in higher education. A survey of the veteran experience was conducted in 2-year and 4-year institutions in a western state. Results indicated that although improvements have been made in relation to veterans in this study, there are still areas that need addressing in order to improve the veteran experience in overall. The veteran, the institution, and the community in general can benefit immensely as veterans use their GI Bill® benefit to pursue higher education, and then put that education to work upon graduation. It is incumbent on institutions of higher education to ensure that a veteran friendly process is in place, in order to attract and retain veterans through graduation. ; MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents, Robert E. and Janice D. Czech, for their sound example, for instilling proper values, and for exemplifying good character. Without them and who they were, I would not be where I am or who I am today. I would also like to express appreciation to my family and friends for their unwavering support to me during the process of completing my graduate degree. Without their support I do not believe I would have endured my many struggles to meet this goal. My appreciation to Dr. Peggy Saunders for her guidance throughout this process, and to my many professors for their patience and understanding throughout each semester. Their wisdom and intuition allowed me to flourish as a non-traditional student, in an environment that seemed foreign. I would like to acknowledge the foundation of hard work, leadership, and service that I learned during my 22 years in the United States Anny. It was not always easy, but the lessons learned have helped me to endure this graduate degree process. Finally, thanks to my graduate committee chair Dr. Natalie Williams. She was my guide, advisor, and champion during this final project. Without her outstanding patience, understanding and depth of knowledge I would have never made it to my goal. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . 7 Literature Review . 9 Introduction . 9 Historical Foundations . 10 WWII Era GI Bill® (Original) . 10 Korean Era GI Bill® . 11 Vietnam Era GI Bill® . 12 Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) . 12 Montgomery GI Bill® and Reserve Programs . 13 Post 9/11 GI Bill® (Current) . 13 GI Bill® Use (as of Fiscal Year 2013) . 14 Effects of the Post 9/11 GI Bill® on Higher Education . 15 Veterans with combat related disability issues . 19 Accommodating veterans with disabilities on campus . 20 Veterans' with disabilities . 25 Reintegration into Society . 28 Higher education: Weathering the perfect storm . 30 Summary . 32 PURPOSE . 34 METHOD . 36 Participants . 37 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 4 Instruments . 38 Procedure . 3 8 Data Analysis . 41 RESULTS . 43 Demographic Data . 43 Overall Experience in Higher Education . 44 Website Navigation . 44 Admissions . 45 Enrollment Services . 46 Veterans Services Office . 47 Faculty Awareness, Classroom Environment, and Campus Life . 48 Service-connected Disability . 51 DISCUSSION . 53 Implications of Results . 55 Limitations . 61 Future Research . 62 Summary . 63 REFERENCES . 65 APPENDICES . 69 Appendix A: Veterans Survey . 70 Appendix B: IRB Approval . ; . 74 Appendix C: Survey Results Spreadsheet. . 76 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 5 List of Tables Table I. Respondents by branch and years of service, and by branch and gender . 37 Table 2. Summary of Survey Responses by Section, with Totals by Section and Response Type . 52 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 6 Abstract The study of the military veterans' experience in higher education has coincided with the history of the GI Bill® and the various iterations of the benefits of this program, beginning with the original version following WWII. With the latest version, the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, institutions of higher education have experienced the highest enrollment numbers of veterans since the conclusion of the Vietnam Conflict. Institutions have historically been reactive in support of new waves of veterans entering higher education. This study sought to gain the perspective of veterans, as to how the institutions have been serving veterans by creating a veteran friendly campus through the admission, enrollment, and veterans services processes. The study also sought to gather the veterans' perspective related to how well faculty and staff understand the military experience, and how well veterans have been integrated into the classroom environment and into higher education in general. In addition, the study sought to measure the perspective of veterans with disabilities and their specific experience in higher education. A survey of the veteran experience was conducted in 2-year and 4-year institutions in a western state. Results indicated that although improvements have been made in relation to veterans in this study, there are still areas that need addressing in order to improve the veteran experience in overall. The veteran, the institution, and the community in general can benefit immensely as veterans use their GI Bill® benefit to pursue higher education, and then put that education to work upon graduation. It is incumbent on institutions of higher education to ensure that a veteran friendly process is in place, in order to attract and retain veterans through graduation. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM With the passing of the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (2008), also known as the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, colleges and universities are seeing higher enrollment by military veterans than they have since the conclusion of the Vietnam Conflict (Cook & Kim, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009), and the intricacies and implementation of this new GI Bill® has caused confusion and frustration for both the veterans and university staff. After WWII, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (or GI Bill®) granted unprecedented educational and economic benefits to veterans. Other GI Bill® programs and adjustments have been made over the years, but the Post 9/11 version was said to be the most generous since the WWII era GI Bill® (Radford, 2009). 7 With the most recent changes to the GI Bill®, veteran presence was expected to grow on campuses across the country and therefore schools have had to adjust to meet the new demand (Cook & Kim, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). Many of the veterans, active military and active military reservists (92%) currently enrolled in university indicated that education should play a role in post-service transition (Zoli, Maury, & Fay, 2015). Many veterans currently enrolled in higher education were exposed to direct and indirect conflict and suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and other physical and psychological challenges. Church (2009) said that "returning veterans will have a wide range of medical diagnoses and related health problems that will have a temporary or chronic impact on their living, working, learning, MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE and relationship functions" (pg. 44). These issues make it difficult for veterans to adjust to a higher education setting, and cause tangible problems for their academic progress. 8 Although there are many positive qualities that veterans bring to an institution of higher education, many also bring with them these battle related issues. These issues make it difficult for veterans to adjust to this setting. The American Council on Education (ACE) found that veterans reported problems meeting academic expectations, while managing service connected injuries, including PTSD and TBI (Steele, Salcedo, and Coley, 2010). Not all veterans will openly disclose the visible and invisible injuries they have, so it is incumbent on colleges and universities to develop welcoming programs that meet these challenges (Church, 2009). This lack of self-disclosure could lead veterans to underutilize traditional campus disability services and therefore not receive the accommodations that may make their experience more manageable. Unfortunately, most post-secondary schools are ill prepared to meet the needs of these Veterans, creating lost opportunities for both the Veteran and the institution. Schools that are slow in meeting the challenges that the veterans present, find they are reacting rather than being proactive in meeting veteran needs. If institutions of higher education do not work to understand this veteran population, then it is likely to lead to an unsuccessful experience for the veteran and the institution (Brown & Gross, 2011). There are areas where higher education is generally meeting the needs of veterans, like including veteran issues in strategic planning, offering specific programs and services for veterans, recognizing prior military experience with college credit, assisting veterans with finding counseling services, providing financial accommodations, and providing counseling on veterans' educational benefits. But there are many areas that still show MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE room for improvement including assisting veterans' transition to college, developing faculty and staff awareness of veteran specific issues, meeting the needs of veterans with military related disabilities, assisting re-enrolling veterans, and providing peer to peer experiences for veterans (Cook & Kim, 2009). Literature Review Introduction This literature review will first establish some historical background relating to the GI Bill®, including changes that have taken place since its establishment following WWII. It will highlight the benefits of each version, especially the original version and the most recent version known as the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, and demonstrate the problems caused by the large influx of new veterans in higher education. Next, it will highlight some of the issues veterans have in a higher education setting related to their combat related disabilities and experiences, and the lack of preparation and forethought by colleges and universities related to these new veterans. Historical IFoundation~1office1] 9 The relationship of higher education and the military dates back to the 1862 Morrill Act, which established military training programs at land-grant institutions (Rumann & Hamrick, 2009, 2010). Subsequently, just prior to WWI, Congress passed the 1916 National Defense Act (NDA) which provided colleges a leading role in training soldiers. The NDA also established the three components of the military: the active duty military component, the military reserve component, and the state National Guard component. In addition, it created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) that standardized what had been solely independent military training programs at colleges and MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 10 universities. These were the fotmdations of the relationship between the military and higher education. Even though the NDA was established prior to WWI, many veterans were unsatisfied with the benefits offered to them, which resulted in significant economic and social unrest. This dissatisfaction prompted the writing of Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). WWII Era GI Bill(RJ (Original). With the large numbers of military veterans returning home after WWII the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (i.e., GI Bill®) granted unprecedented educational and economic benefits to these veterans. After much strnggle, this act was passed by congress and signed into law by President Roosevelt on June 22, 1944 (Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). When signing the GI Bill®, President Roosevelt said "It gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down" (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013, para. 24). This trnly generous WWII era GI Bill® provided many financial and educational benefits to veterans and their families. Additionally benefits included living stipends, Veterans were given loan guarantees for homes, farms and businesses (e.g., nearly 2.4 million loans from 1944 to 1952), as well as unemployment pay and employment assistance (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013). By the time the original GI Bill® had ended in 1956, 7.8 million of the nearly 16 million WWII veterans had used education benefits to some extent. In the peak year of 1947, veterans made up 49% of all college admissions. One interesting fact is that although there was an unemployment benefit available, less than 20% of the funds set aside for this benefit was used by the veterans. The total cost of this original version of MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE the GI Bill® was $14.5 Billion (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013; Military.com, 2006). 11 Many names have been given to this generation of veterans that served in WWII, such as the Greatest Generation, the G .I. Generation, and the Civic Generation. Regardless of the label, the impact of this generation due in large part to the GI Bill® education benefits, is immeasurable and can be felt to the present. In her book, Mettler (2005) stated that ''.just as the G.I. Bill transformed the lives of veterans who used it, they in tum helped change America" (p. 11 ). This GI Bill® opened up educational opportunities to those other than the privileged in America. Higher education that had previously been reserved for mainly white, native-born, Protestant Americans prior to WWII, was now a possibility for those that were Jewish, Catholic, African American, immigrants, and the working class. This changed the landscape of America forever (Mettler, 2005). Korean Era GI Bill.® The Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, or Korean Conflict GI Bill®, was instituted to carry on the tradition of taking care of those who served and fought for their country. It was approved by President Truman on July 16, 1952. It was available for use by veterans who served between June 27, 1950 and Febrnary 1, 1955. Although this GI Bill® still provided education benefits and living stipends, as well has loan guarantees, it left the employment assistance up to the individual states. By the time this program ended in 1955, some 43% of the over 5.5 million veterans of the Korean Conflict had used their education benefits to some extent. Total cost to the country was $4.5 Billion and over 1.5 million loans were guaranteed, meaning the MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE government guaranteed a portion of the loan to the lien holder in case of default (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013; Military.com, 2006). Vietnam Era GI Bill.® 12 The Veterans Readjustment Act of 1966, or Vietnam Era GI Bill®, was signed by President Johnson on March 3, 1966. It retroactively covered post Korean Conflict veterans who served after February 1, 1955 and continued for veterans who served until May 7, 1975. It again provided education benefits, for the first time including active duty military members, and again loan guarantees. Between 1966 and 1989, 6 million Vietnam veterans, 1.4 million Post-Korean veterans, and 7 51,000 active duty military used this education benefit to some extent. More than $42 Billion was spent on this version of the GI Bill®, and 4.5 million loans were guaranteed (Military.com, 2006). Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP). VEAP was a transitional program that bridged the gap between the Vietnam Era GI Bill®, and the Montgomery GI Bill®. Veterans, who entered after December 31, 1976 were eligible for education benefits under this version, but unlike the previous versions this one required a contribution by the military member and they had to choose to participate upon enlistment. The participant contributed through payroll deductions up to $2700 and the government then matched two dollars for every dollar contributed for a maximum of $5400. If one chose not to participate, then they had no money for education available at the end of their service. In addition to this money for education, the loan guarantees continued (Military.com, 2006). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 13 Montgomery GI Bill® and Reserve Programs. The Montgomery GI Bill®, named for its sponsor Representative G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery, was established in 1984. Representative Montgomery was the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and worked to support veterans. For the first time a version of the GI Bill® also included education benefits for those serving in the reserve components, although at a reduced benefit to their active duty counterparts. A reserve member had to enlist for 6 years, and after serving 6 months they could begin using their education benefit. It again required the active military member to contribute toward their future education, with matching funds by the military. An active duty veteran was eligible if they served after 30 June, 1985 and had to enlist for a minimum of 2 years. This program continues to be used by veterans up to this day, and overlaps with the new Post 9/11 GI Bill® (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013; Military.com, 2006). Post 9/11 GI Bill® (Current) The newest of the GI Bill® education and benefit programs is called the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Program (Post 9/11 GI Bill®). It was signed into law in July of2008, and became effective August 1, 2009. The Post 9/11 GI Bill® is the most comprehensive bill since the original in 1944. It provides benefits to service members, both active and reserve, who served at least 90 aggregate days of active military service after September 10, 2001. This means that an active duty member and a reserve component member serving the same amount of active duty time will receive the same benefit. The benefit can be used while still in the active military or reserve component and after discharge (Post 9/11 GI Bill Overview, n.d., Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 14 The Veterans Administration (VA) pays up to 100% of the student's tuition and fees for their education, based on the amount of service after the date of eligibility. The tuition and fees provided under this version of the GI Bill® are sent directly to the educational institution. This GI Bill® also includes up to $1000 per year for textbooks, a living stipend while emolled in school, based on cost ofliving which averages $1368 per month nationally, a one-time relocation payment of $500 for those relocating from a rural area to attend school, and for those still on active duty in the military the opportunity to transfer some or all of the benefit to their children (Post 9/11 GI Bill Overview, n.d.; Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014). The benefit is tiered depending on how much active duty service was rendered after September 10, 2001. For instance if the member served at least 36 months of active duty service, then they receive 100% of the benefits. For 30-36 months it is 90%, 24-30 months is 80%, 18-24 months is 70%, 12-18 months is 60%, 6-12 months is 50%, and 90 days to 6 months is 40% (Post 9/11 GI Bill Overview, n.d.). GI Bill® Use (as of Fiscal Year 2013). With the increased benefit of the Post 9/11 GI Bill® came a new wave of college bound military veterans and reserve members, and in some cases their family members to whom they have transferred benefits. The higher educational institutions around the country will need to prepare for this new wave, just as they had to prepare and react to the wave of veterans entering school following WWII. The Institute for Veterans and Military Families, at Syracuse University, conducted a multi-pronged study to gain a better understanding of social, economic, and wellness concerns of the newest generation of veterans. There are over 3.9 million MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 15 veterans identified as disabled by the Veterans Administration (VA). Of those, 43% were from the Gulf War era and beyond. Additionally, of the more than 8,500 respondents in that study 58% reported a service related disability. Of those in the survey that reported service-connected disability, 79% said that the disability created obstacles for them when they transitioned to civilian life. In fact, 12% indicated the disability hindered starting higher education, and 28% said the disability created obstacles in completing their higher education. These same veterans indicated that of the many motivations to join the military, 53% said that educational benefits were a reason they joined, followed by a desire to serve their country at 52%. In the research 92% of respondents indicated that education should play a role in post-service transition. The response to this particular question indicated how overwhelmingly important education is to the most recent service members and veterans, and showed intent to further their education. A study of GI Bill® usage by veterans was published providing data through fiscal year 2013. The study indicated that in the Fiscal Year (FY) of2009 the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) reported just 34,393 students using the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, but in FY 2013 the total was up to 754,229 students. If all of the current GI Bill® benefit programs are included, there were 1,091,044 students (FY 2013) using benefits. Payments from the Post 9/11 GI Bill® in FY 2013, to students and colleges, was over $10 billion, with the total from all GI Bill® programs being over $12 billion (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014). Effects of the Post 9/11 GI Bill® on Higher Education. Military veterans are likely to enroll or reenroll in higher education following military service. It is incumbent upon these institutions to be prepared, in order to make MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 16 the veterans' transition easier (Rumann and Hamrick, 2009). This is especially the case with the advent of the generous benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill®. The researchers further pointed out that because of generational and societal perspectives, many current administrators and faculty have most likely not experienced military service. This has caused issues with how faculty and staff at institutions relate to veterans. Rumann and Hamrick (2009) suggested that building relationships with outside veteran organizations could bridge the gap that may exist. In addition, they suggested that campus administrations could provide opportunities for students, staff, and faculty to better understand aspects of military service, complimenting a broader focus on diversity on campuses. In their more recent study, Rumann and Hamrick (2010) focused on a small group of National Guard and reserve veterans who had returned from wartime deployments to re-enroll in school. The veterans experienced things such as lingering high stress levels related to their deployments, a maturity gap that had developed between them and traditional undergraduate students, personal relationship issues, and identity related issues. Cook and Kim (2009) took a broader look at easing the transition of service members on campus. Their study involved surveys returned by 723 institutions across the country. The study found that there was a varied approach to serving veterans, with no obvious pattern as to which programs and services were provided, or what entity on campus was responsible, and reported that nearly two thirds of colleges and universities that did offer veteran services have increased those services since September 11, 2001. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 17 In the same study, researchers came to the conclusion that there were areas where higher education was generally meeting the needs of military students, and areas where institutions could improve. Some examples of areas where institutions met veteran needs were including veteran issues in strategic planning, offering specific programs and services for veterans, recognizing prior military experience with college credit, assisting veterans with finding counseling services, providing financial accommodations, and providing counseling on veterans' educational benefits (Cook & Kim, 2009). Areas that needed improvement included helping veterans transition to a college environment, providing professional development to faculty and staff on veteran transition issues, training of staff on meeting the needs veterans with brain injuries and other military related disabilities, streamlining of administrative procedures for veterans enrolling or re-enrolling, and providing opportunities for veterans to connect with peers on campus. With the expected influx of students using the Post-9/11 GI Bill®, institutions need to address these areas of weakness when it comes to veteran services and programs. In their report, Brown and Gross (2011) stated that successful management of military students brings benefits to all involved: the student; the academic institution; and the community. Part ofthis management includes understanding the characteristics of veteran and active military students. Radford (2009) detailed many characteristics of veterans and military undergraduates. The study states that: Slightly more than 3 percent of all undergraduates enrolled during the 2007-08 academic year were veterans, and slightly more than 1 percent were military service members. Among these military undergraduates, about 75 percent were MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE veterans, 16 percent were military service members on active duty, and almost 9 percent were military service members in the reserves. (p. 6) 18 The researcher also detailed issues faced by military undergraduates who wished to attend college: Difficulty transitioning to life after military service; experiencing psychological and/or physical post-war trauma; readjusting to personal relationships; and adapting to a new lifestyle. Radford also highlights that veterans can face bureaucratic red tape from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) relating to their education benefits as well as from the college or university staff who were often not well versed in the details of those benefits. Many veterans face obstacles and challenges in using the Post-9/11 GI Bill® and transitioning to college (Steele, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010). Challenges noted included expectations different from their military experience, balancing academics and other responsibilities, relating to non-veteran students, managing service-connected injuries and disabilities. They also noted institutional efforts to adapt to the new GI Bill® benefits. Schools reported increased staff workloads of 50% to 200% related to the new influx of veteran students. The researchers (Steel, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010) noted some of the reasons behind this influx were, increases in total GI Bill® enrollment over previous years, lack oflmowledge in details of the new law, coordination with student accounts offices with respect to receipt of payments, the need to submit enrollment verification of each veteran student, and the need to assist veteran students in understanding their benefits. Institutions could more effectively serve veteran students according to the results ofa focus group study (Steel, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010). Institutions that encourage MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 19 veterans to self-identify early, ensure veteran program administrators are adequately trained, and that other staff and administration are trained on the new GI Bill®, tend to have more effective programs for veterans. The institutions should employ disability and mental health staff who understand veterans' issues, have consistent policies for college credit for military training, have veteran specific orientations and informational sessions, and encourage veteran student organizations on campus (Steel, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010). Veterans with Combat Related Disability Issues One challenge America faces as the more recent conflicts wind down, is that there will be more veterans with disabilities returning from military service, and these veterans will be seeking higher education. It will be important for staff and faculty of associated schools to be prepared to assist these veterans with disabilities in their transition (DiRarnio & Spires, 2009). The veterans that find it especially difficult to adjust to higher education are those with combat related disability issues, including hidden issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Survivability from combat injury has increased and therefore an increase in veterans with disabilities on campus is inevitable. In the most recent conflicts, nearly 85% of those receiving combat injuries are surviving due to advances in protective body annor, use of coagulants, and advances in the military medical evacuation system (Madaus, Miller II, & Vance, 2009). The Veterans Administration (VA) reported that in 1986 there were 2,225,289 military veterans with service-connected disabilities. By 2013 the number of veterans with service-connected disabilities had climbed to 3,743,259, mainly due to exposure to the MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 20 most recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased survivability from combat injury (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014b). Researchers from a study of veterans with three major conditions (e.g., PTSD, TBI, and major depression) reported that 18.5% of those returning from the most recent conflicts had PTSD or depression, and 19.5% reported experiencing TBI during their deployment. Of the veterans responding to the study, 11.2% reported PTSD or depression but no TBI, 7.3% reported PTSD/depression and TBI, and 12.2% reported just TBI (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). More recent casualty statistics reported to congress indicate that, approximately 118,829 military members/veterans deployed between 2000 and 2014 were diagnosed with PTSD. During the same period 307,283 were diagnosed with some form ofTBI (Fischer, 2014). Colleges and universities across the country need to find ways to accommodate these new military veterans that may be coming to their institutions, but especially those with these sometimes unseen disabilities. The Disability Services (DS) offices on campus will need to take a leading role in this accommodation. Accommodating Veterans with Disabilities on Campus. In a study of the role of the DS staff in accommodating veterans with disabilities, 237 members of the Association on Higher Education and Disabilities completed a survey, responses indicated that only 33% were comfortable or knowledgeable about campus efforts to serve these wounded warriors. Additionally, only 17.3% felt they had above average ability to serve these veterans (Vance, Miller II, 2009). There is a need to develop veteran friendly programs that reduce red tape, and have a designated point person or office. Other recommendations were to have an ongoing campus dialogue MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 21 which includes members of the DS staff, work on collaboration with other campus professionals, and work to collaborate in educating faculty and staff on the unique needs of these veterans (Vance & Miller II, 2009). There have been many discussions on how to accommodate veterans with disabilities on college and university campuses. The American Council on Education (ACE), with support from the Kresge Foundation and the Association on Higher Education and Disability and America's Heroes at Work conducted a "Veterans Success Jam" in May of2010. The "Veteran Success Jam'', was a three-day online collaboration that brought together thousands of veterans and their families, active service members, campus leaders, nonprofit organizations, and govermnent agencies from around the country. Recommendations were generated for colleges and universities accommodating veterans with PTSD and TBI (American Council on Education, 2010). During discussions at the Veterans Success Jam it was determined that overall veterans bring a lot of good qualities with them to campus, such as a higher degree of maturity, experience and leadership qualities, familiarity with diversity, and a level of focus not seen in their peers. Unfortunately, these qualities have been earned at great personal expense, and may well affect their educational goals. Campuses that are prepared to handle these challenges will rnake the transition of these veterans much easier, and the schools will benefit from being seen as veteran friendly (American Council on Education, 2010). Part of preparing to properly serve and accommodate these veterans is to understand what PTSD and TBI are, and what effect they may have on the academic MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 22 progress of these students. It is imperative that faculty and staff be educated and aware of these possible challenges (American Council on Education, 2010). Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in veterans usually involves a blow or concussion to the head which may include a penetrating head injury, which disrupts the function of the brain itself. These are most often associated with contact with an improvised explosive device (IED). Generally TBI can result in long and short-term issues, but most people get better over time. For those with mild cases of TB I, about 80% of the cases from the most recent conflicts, the recovery time can be as little as 3-6 months (American Council on Education, 2010). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychological injury that develops in response to exposure to an extreme traumatic event or events over time. PTSD trauma may include threatened death of oneself or others, serious injury, and even just the constant threat of personal injury. This creates a feeling of fear and helplessness that actually changes the brains chemical and hormonal balance. For some victims the symptoms will disappear when they are no longer exposed, yet for others they persist over a long period of time. Flashbacks or reliving events can happen in PTSD cases, which bring the stresses back to the forefront. These victims can sometimes avoid these feelings by avoiding events or situations that may trigger them. Usually PTSD symptoms manifest themselves within a few months, but they can take years to appear (American Council on Education, 2010). Staff and faculty may find it helpful to know what cognitive difficulties may be manifested in a veteran with PTSD or TBI. Each person manifests symptoms differently, so it hard to generalize. These symptoms can be things such as: difficulty in MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 23 concentration and attention; challenges processing infonnation; learning and memory deficits; sluggish abstract reasoning; and slowed executive functioning including problem solving, planning, insight, and sequencing. These veterans may also experience stressors outside the classroom involving home life, work, sleep disturbances, trouble managing time, and panic attacks (American Council on Education, 2010). When considering how to accommodate veterans with these types of disabilities it is best to understand that PTSD and TBI .symptoms are expressed in very unique ways. Standard procedures for accommodating a student with disabilities may not work with these veterans. In addition, in extreme cases, PTSD and TBI may also lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. These symptoms can be aggravated by academic pressure, health concerns, relationship issues, sleep problems, and substance abuse issues. Some factors that may have a positive effect on these veterans are social support by other veterans, professional medical treatment, good health and eating habits, and participation in recreational activities (American Coimcil on Education, 2010). Institutional faculty and staff should also be aware that not all veterans with PTSD or TBI will require disability accommodations to be successful in education, while others may. If they do require and qualify for special accommodations they will normally fall under either the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or Section 504 of the Vocational and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. So adjustments may be made for these veterans, as they are with others with disabilities, as long as the accommodations do not change the overall academic program in question (American Council on Education, 2010). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 24 Another factor to consider is that these veterans are less likely than their peers on campus to access special accommodations for which they may qualify. There are many reasons this may occur such as pride, lack of understanding campus resources on their part, or the feeling that faculty and staff do not understand PTSD or TBI. It is necessary to realize that most staff and faculty have not experienced anything close to what these veterans have been exposed to in combat (Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). Faculty and staff must be informed in other ways because of the lack of exposure to military experiences and lifestyle. Increased awareness by faculty and staff can also meet the needs of broader commitment to diversity on campus (American Council on Education, 2010; Rtunann & Hamrick, 2009). Faculty and staff should know that the manifestation of symptoms, and even the diagnosis of these conditions, may not occur until well after they leave the military. Therefore, they may come to the campus undiagnosed. Becoming aware of the outward signs of PTSD and TBI could present opportunities to counsel veterans on possible accommodations, for those that have not already made arrangements with the DS office on campus. Of course, veterans must be willing participants and never be coerced (American Council on Education, 2010). Faculty and staff would also find it useful to become aware of other veteran resources on campus and in the community that may be helpful in the veterans' transition to the college or university setting. These could be resources such as the Veteran Student Services office, Veterans Upward Bound (VUB), the local Student Veterans of America chapter, or various community veteran resources like the Veteran Service Organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and Disabled American Veterans MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 25 (DAV)), the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital, and others. Partnering with outside organizations would help university staff in handling veteran specific issues (American Council on Education, 2010; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). In general faculty and staff should understand that most veterans are new to their disabilities as well and may be unaware of their rights as disabled students to receive accommodations for an identified disability. The process of getting and accepting help can take time for these veterans. Sometimes their military background can hinder them, mainly due to the stigma of weakness that can be placed upon someone in the military with disabilities or shortcomings. Faculty and staff should also be aware that there are many other disabilities that veterans may bring to campus in addition to PTSD/TBI such as loss oflimb(s), severe burns, deafness, vision issues, and general learning disabilities (American Council on Education, 2010). Veterans with Disabilities. In a study published in 2012, focus groups were held involving 31 veterans who had self-reported PTSD symptoms. Transcripts of the sessions were analyzed to establish dominant themes in the responses of these veterans. Findings indicated that veterans with PTSD. needed services in a variety of different areas, and they also had some specific recommendations for easing their transition (Ellison, et al., 2012). The veterans in the study found it important for the schools to provide services for educational planning, including helping them to prepare for the rigors of higher education. The reality is that many of these veterans went into the military because they felt they were not ready for college. The veterans felt they needed help with counseling on the educational goals, and in choosing an appropriate major (Ellison, et al., 2012). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 26 Another concern for these recent veterans is being able to reintegrate into society after their military service. Many of them left from their parents' homes right after high school without learning to live civilian life on their own. The veterans indicated the sudden change in social, psychological, and environmental norms from the military to civilian life created concerns. These concerns included homelessness, lack of family support, medical and/or addiction needs, physical disability needs, financial difficulties, and the how to balance their education and living needs (Ellison, et al., 2012). One theme that manifested itself across the veterans was the need for guidance and counseling regarding their GI Bill® and VA benefits. The veterans indicated that when calling veterans services they had difficulty reaching an actual person who could answer questions for them. When they did reach an individual, this person lacked proper knowledge of benefits, or could not properly cotmsel them on the pitfalls of choosing one educational benefit over the other. The staff at these offices need to be knowledgeable and infonnative (Ellison, et al., 2012). These veterans were concerned over the impact that their PTSD would have on their educational attainment. They indicated high anxiety dnring classes which could be triggered by things such as loud and sudden noises, hypervigilance while traveling to school, or anything that might remind them of their combat experience. Some indicated that they coped with these difficulties by using medication, positioning themselves at the back of the class, trying to choose classes with fewer students, or even evening or online classes. The veterans also expressed concern with perceived difficulties in memory and concentration in class, and the need for special accommodations (Ellison, et al., 2012). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 27 The veterans provided some possible ways that institutions could mitigate some of the difficulties that they face. They indicated the need for on campus outreach services from VA facilities where the veterans normally gather. The younger veterans also expressed a need for more outreach by veterans their own age and not just by groups of what they perceived to be veterans old enough to be their fathers (Ellison, et al., 2012). Peer support was another area where they felt services could be utilized to their benefit. The veterans felt that being able to interact with veterans who have had similar experiences, would help them to navigate the difficulties of the environment. There is an unseen trnst bond that fellow veterans feel from each other, especially if they know they have each served in similar combat situations. The veterans thought that a program of veterans providing counseling to veterans would be ideal and that one-on-one service settings would be best (Ellison, et al., 2012). These veterans also suggested that there should be some coordination between services received with their VA education benefit and with the clinical services related to their PTSD treatment. Veterans were concerned with the logistics of managing their schooling and the case management involving their treatment. The veterans suggested that there be some coordination between the schools and the VA to have school representatives available at the VA facilities for question and answer sessions related to higher education, as well as maybe some workshops related to college preparation. The veterans also wondered if it were possible to have individual advocates that would walk them through the processes such as admissions, financial aid, and enrollment (Ellison, et al., 2012). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 28 The veterans also suggested that there is a big change between the structured life of the military and the less structured civilian culture. Veterans felt in the military they had less autonomy and flexibility, and were concerned that their dependence on the military structure could hinder them in college persistence. Veterans felt that the process on campus needed to be streamlined and clear in order for them to better cope with the process. A one-stop-shop for veteran student services was suggested (Ellison, et al., 2012). Another concern was the perceived disconnect from the social networks the veterans relied upon prior to serving in the military. Having experienced many traumatic combat related experiences, and feeling a veteran no longer fit into groups or social settings that veterans may have been included in prior to their service. The veterans' social networks had become those that were fonned in the military and the transition back to civilian social networks was difficult. Veteran student groups on campus and national student veteran organizations could help ease these concerns (Ellison, et al., 2012). Reintegration into Society As veterans return from conflicts they have difficulties reintegrating into work environments, educational environments, social interactions and relationships, general physical functions, and sound emotional well-being. This is especially true for veterans that return with disabilities such as PTSD and TBI (Ostovary & Dapprich, 2011). As related specifically to (re)integration in education, veterans find both challenges and opportunities await them. The challenges come in many different forms and veterans need help navigating them upon entering the higher education environment. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE The opportunities depend on the approach to veterans established in each school (Ostovary & Dapprich, 2011). 29 One of the challenges faced in educational (re )integration is the loss of the direct benefits veterans were used to receiving in the military. Veterans are used to their day to day needs being taken care of for them with relative ease for the most part. Veterans' educational benefits can sometimes be delayed. The veterans are encouraged to apply for their GI Bill® benefits soon after discharge, yet the process of receiving these benefits is not immediate. This urgency in using the education benefit may cause the veteran to feel rushed into college enrollment and amplify things such as anger, irritability, and poor concentration in school. Classroom settings can also be a challenge and veterans may be affected by class size and noise, placement in the room, and attention and concentration issues. The veterans themselves report problems with the rigors of the curricuhun, social interaction with other students, and their perceived limits to services on campus (Ostovary & Dapprich, 2011). Educational satisfaction of veterans relates to how the respective institution of higher education works to become veteran friendly. Colleges and universities need adapt to the needs of new veterans as they transition. A veteran friendly campus is one that collaborates all services related to the (re)integration of veterans with disabilities. The services should include veteran centers on campus, veteran specific orientations, intramural programs for disabled students, and a campus-wide focus on veteran services. In addition, a student veteran organization should be established on campus. These organizations may improve interaction between veterans and traditional students, and between veterans and faculty and staff (Ostovary & Dapprich, 2011). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 30 As has been the pattern of past generations, social and political change has occurred when veterans return from the fight, including those that return with disabilities. Following WWI the change came in the form of what was called the Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education and Disabled Veterans Act. Following WWII the change was known as the Serviceman's Readjustment Act. Then after Vietnam the program was called Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act. Our newest veterans with disabilities are covered under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (AD AAA) of 2008 (Ostovary & Dapprich, 2011 ). Higher Education: Weathering the Perfect Storm. It has been said that the return of veterans from recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the passage of the ADAAA, and the comprehensive benefits of the new Post 9/11 GI Bill® have created a so-called perfect storm that higher education has to overcome (Grossman, 2009). How higher education reacts will detennine how well they navigate the storm. Veterans with disabilities have historically been seen as assertive when it comes to their civil rights and educational benefits earned during their service. Many have been through traumas of the battlefield and will have been diagnosed with PTSB, TBI, and other issues (Grossman, 2009). Institutions of higher education will have to adapt to and learn to accommodate these veterans. Postsecondary institutions can become overwhelmed by this new influx of veterans with disabilities, or it could see this as an opportunity for positive changes. These new veterans could become the wakeup call that higher education needs, or a stumbling block. To weather the storm they will need to look at this challenge from a MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 31 new perspective and come up with new solutions that include a campus-wide response to accommodating veterans, and a Universal Design (UD) approach to their education (Burnett & Segoria, 2009; Grossman, 2009). The researcher (Grossman, 2009) lays out the challenges that come along with this perfect storm, and that higher education institutions will have to decide how they meet the challenges. First, they have to decide to prepare for this new population of veterans, of which they have had little if any experience dealing with. This will require training of faculty, staff, and DS staff on the characteristics and needs of these veterans. Although the AD AAA makes it clear that institutions are not required to fundamentally change their programs, but when it comes to veteran accommodations they may need to determine what really is fundamental. Veterans with PTSD and TBI require adjustments (accommodations) to the status quo, yet at the same time they do not want to be coddled (Grossman, 2009). The second challenge for colleges and universities is to develop veteran outreach activities that encourage them to enroll in college, take advantage of earned accommodations, and persist to graduation. They will need to address veterans with disabilities that hesitate to self-identify, that bristle at even being called or considered disabled, but that still need to be informed of campus benefits. Outreach activities should take place at locations where veterans may congregate (on and off campus), on social media cites, and at local military base education centers where possible. Veteran-specific student organizations, clubs, and fraternities may also be developed to inform veterans. For the most part these veterans are not used to the academic culture surrounding MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 32 disability accommodations and need help reviewing their documented disabilities or help obtaining proper documentation (Grossman, 2009). The next challenge noted is that veterans need someone on campus that can support them when the challenges and rigors of academic life arise. Ideally this would be someone with military experience generally similar to the individual veteran experience. Veterans with disabilities need to have someone they know can relate to their specific needs, and challenges, and be sympathetic to their cause (Grossman, 2009). Finally, colleges and universities need to be up to the challenge that this is an ongoing opportunity to help these current veterans and those that may come in the future. The higher education institutions should realize that America has made a commitment to these veterans and that part of that commitment is to their proper education. The commitment to this opportunity has to stay consistent, perpetual, and always focused on meeting the needs of these veterans with disabilities (Grossman, 2009). Summary There has been a long history established of federal assistance for veterans leaving military service, especially since WWII concluded. The GI Bill® has become a major part of those benefits. The original GI Bill® was a very generous benefit that provided an educational opportunity to millions of veterans following WWII, and literally changed society for generations. The newest version, the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, once again offers a tremendous benefit to veterans transitioning from the military and entering higher education environments around the country. This new GI Bill®, along with the large number of veterans leaving service following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have facilitated the need for change MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 33 and adaption of student services at these institutions of higher education. Some of these colleges and universities have done better at adapting than others, but the need for all to make the change is required. Reintegration of these veterans into society, and more specifically into education, is critical for their well-being. These veterans almost always need help navigating the challenges faced in a higher education environment. Colleges and universities must change and adapt as society does in relation to veterans. Many of these new veterans coming to higher education have been exposed to combat and may have disabilities, including PTSD and TBI, which will need to be accommodated. Adjustments will need to be made by faculty and staff in order to address the educational needs of these veterans with disabilities. How these adjustments are made, and how effective they are in helping the veterans transition, will impact the experience of both the institutes of higher education the veterans they serve. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 34 PURPOSE With the passing of the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, colleges and universities have seen the greatest influx of veterans in higher education since the end of the Vietnam conflict (Cook & Kim, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). This new GI Bill® benefit is the most generous since the end of WWII (Radford, 2009) which has resulted in higher veteran enrollment, and has required colleges and universities to adjust policies and procedures to meet the needs of these veterans. In research by Zoli, Maury, and Fay (2015) of more than 8,500 military members and veterans, 92% said that education should play a role in post-service transition. Unfortunately most colleges and universities were inadequately prepared to meet the needs of this new influx of veterans and have been reactive in making the necessary adjustments to meet their needs (Brown & Gross, 2011). Many of these new veterans have returned with disabilities related to their wartime experiences, such as PTSD and TBI, which require additional considerations and accommodations. These veterans with disabilities have both temporary and chronic health issues that have affected their educational experience (Church, 2009). Faculty, staff, and related student services offices need to work together to meet the needs and special accommodations of these veterans with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to detennine veterans/veterans with disabilities perspectives on how well they have been integrated and accommodated at the community college and university level in a western state. The study sought to determine how veterans with disabilities perceive overall services for injured veterans on campus, accommodations and disability services for veterans, and supportive services that allow veterans to persist and graduate from a post-secondary school. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 35 The primary research questions were: 1. To what extent do veterans feel that their respective college or university has developed a veteran friendly campus by streamlining the admission, enrollment, and veteran services processes? 2. To what extent do veterans feel faculty and staff have an adequate understanding of the experiences of military veterans and are faculty and staff aware of helpful ways of integrating or reintegrating them into the classroom and into higher education in general? 3. To what extent do veterans perceive that colleges or universities adequately understand and accommodate veterans' with disabilities, specifically those disabilities related to combat related issues such as PTSD and TBI? MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 36 METHOD To address the purpose of this study, a needs analysis through survey research was conducted using the perspectives of veterans at both a university and community college in a western state. Veteran attitudes and perspectives were gathered related to their experiences during the admissions and emollment processes at their institutes of higher / education. Additionally the participants considered disabled, due to PTSD or TBI, were further queried relating to their specific experiences on campus. The study was conducted using a survey consisting of 4-point Likert scale questionnaire (Appendix A), with follow-up open-ended questions. The Likert scale questions were used to measure the overall perception of veterans' experiences in higher education. The open-ended questions were used to identify common themes and opinions from these same veterans. Additional survey questions were provided for veterans who self-identified as having PTSD and/or TBL The study was of particular interest to the researcher due to past experience in the military, work experience serving veterans on campus, and experience as a student having used GI Bill® benefits for graduate studies. The researcher served in the U.S. Army for over 22 years retiring in 2005, was grandfathered into the Post 9/11 GI Bill® benefits after retirement, and used those benefits in pursuit of a Master of Education degree at a university in a western state. Additionally the researcher is a service-connected veteran with disabilities. The researcher worked with veterans at a university as a staff member in a Department of Education program called Veterans Upward Bound (Department of Education, 2014), and was a member of a university committee of concerned faculty and staff, dedicated to creating a veteran friendly environment. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 37 Participants The study surveyed veterans attending a university and a community college in a western state, who were associated with the Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) program at each campus. The survey was distributed to 158 veterans who participated in VUB between 2013 and 2015. Total respondents to the survey were 33, a 23% response rate. As with the military in general, it was anticipated that the majority of the respondents would be male (see Table 1). Part of the survey allowed the veterans to identify whether they had a service­connected disability for PTSD and/or TBI. Those that identified themselves as disabled due to PTSD/TBI were further queried, to gather information related to their particular experiences regarding disability accommodations and services on campus. Table I. Respondents by branch and years of service, and by branch and gender. 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years Retired 20+ Male Female Army 4 4 1 1 8 2 Navy 2 1 NIA 1 3 1 Air Force NIA 4 NIA 4 5 3 Marine Corp 5 2 NIA NIA 6 1 Nat. Guard NIA NIA NIA 1 NIA 1 Reserve 1 2 NIA NIA 3 Total 12 13 1 7 25 8 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 38 Instruments This research was conducted using a survey of questions related to the veterans' experiences and satisfaction level with campus services, including questions specifically for those veterans who identified themselves as having a service-connected disability (Appendix A). The questionnaire measured levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each topic. No neutral response was offered to the respondents. The researcher's rationale being that the veterans were either satisfied or not with each aspect of their experience on campus. The open-ended questions required a written response that allowed the respondents to express deeper feelings related to the topics. These were used to further identify common themes. Procedure The study identified veterans enrolled in VUB using program specific database software known as Blumen® (Compansol, 2012). The database is used to track the progress of veterans in VUB and was readily available to the researcher. Although the researcher had access to the veterans in the VUB program, Institutional Review Board (IRB) permissions were requested in accordance with institutional procedures. The IRB request included all survey instruments and informed consent forms required for the study. Once approval of the study was given (Appendix B), the researcher obtained a current number ofVUB participants served between 2013 and 2015, and began the survey process. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 39 An email was sent to 158 veterans emolled in VUB between 2013 and 2015. The initial email introduced the study and asked each veteran to participate in the survey. The email made clear that their participation in the survey was consent for their data to be used in the study. The veterans were instructed that these surveys would include descriptive information such as background, age, and sex, but that no identifiable information would be published in the results. Of the initial 158 emails sent, 15 were rejected due to invalid emails, and two veterans specifically requested not to be contacted further and were removed from the participant list. The final pool was 141 veterans. One week after the initial email, a second email was sent to each veteran with a link to the survey and they were asked to complete it as quickly as possible. After a two week response period the researcher sent the link again, to offer those veterans who have not yet responded the opportunity to participate. Due to minimal response, the survey link was then sent out two additional times before it was determined that the maximum voluntary response was likely reached. There were a total of 33 completed surveys received, or a 23% response rate approximately. Of those received, eight women veterans completed the survey, or 24%. Unfortunately researchers have found that response rates to online surveys are significantly lower than paper surveys, despite various practices used to lift total responses. It was reported that online surveys had response rates 23 % lower than that of paper surveys (Nulty 2008). Nulty suggests the following procedures as a way to boost response rates from online surveys such as: MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 1. "Pushing" the survey using an easy access URL sent directly to the participants. 2. Frequent reminders to the participants, at least 3, however some researchers in the study were concerned with irritating the survey population. 3. Involving academics with a vested interest, to remind possible participants. 40 4. Somehow persuading participants that the data from their responses will be used usefully and taken seriously. 5. Providing rewards of some sort, prizes, points, extra credit, etc. But some cautioned that students should do it because it is worth their time, versus extrinsic motivators that may skew the sample. 6. Help students to understand how to give constructive criticism, which can help their open-ended responses. 7. Create surveys that seek constructive criticism, which encourages participation and avoids the pitfalls of simple numerical rating surveys. During the data collection process, some of these tactics were employed to increase response rates. As indicated earlier in this research, multiple emails with an easy to access URL were used, providing frequent reminders, participants were informed that their data would be used to improve the situation of current and future veteran students, and the survey was constrncted in a way that would allow the veterans to provide constrnctive criticism using both a Likert scale survey and follow-up open-ended comments. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 41 Based on the researcher's work with veterans for over 10 years prior to this study, the response rate for the current research was not a surprising. Most veterans have been reluctant to participate in extracurricular activities and assignments given through VUB, due to their busy life and their focus on the requirements of their education which effect their grades. In addition, female veterans seem more likely to participate than male veterans. Female veterans made up only 16% of the initial pool of veterans to whom the survey was sent, but responded at a rate of 24%. Additionally, of those who responded 33% indicated they had been diagnosed with PTSD and/or TBI. Data Analysis The survey was administered and gathered over the course of a semester and the results were analyzed. Data were reviewed on a regular basis as the surveys were returned by the respondents. The researcher reviewed the responses for overall concepts, emerging patterns, and overarching categorization. The data were described and interpreted to answer questions posed by the research on the military veteran experience in higher education in a western state. An ecological psychology approach was talcen to analyze the participant's perspectives related to their environment (Boudah, 2011). Ecological psychology is the study of the relationship of humans and their environments, and how that enviromnent affects the inhabitants. In this case the higher education environment and military veterans. The researcher collected the data over time and then coded the data for analysis. During coding the researcher worked to identify patterns, developed categories, and MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE looked for common themes and trends. As new responses crune in, patterns categories and themes were changed and adjusted as necessary. 42 The researcher then moved beyond the patterns, categories and themes to develop a theory based on a review of the causes, consequences, and relationships of the veteran perspective. The researcher brought a theoretical sensitivity to the subject based on past experience in the military and current work with veterans on college and university crunpuses. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE RESULTS 43 The survey questions were broken down into demographic data, and seven survey sections: (a) overall experience in higher education, (b) website navigation, (c) admissions, (d) enrollment services, (e) veterans services office, (f) faculty awareness/classroom enviromnent/campus life, and (g) service-connected disability. Likert scale answers were gathered, and the respondents were also given the opportunity to comment on each section as well. See the Likert scale results (Appendix C). Demographic Data Based on the survey answers in this section, the researcher received a good mixture of military veterans. Of the respondents, seven indicated they were retired military (typically a minimum of20 years served), one had served 11-19 years, 13 had served 6-10 years, and 12 had served in the military 0-5 years. As to the question of how long each veteran had been out of the military before starting college, nine veterans had been out just 0-6 months, only three 7-12 months, seven had been out 1-2 years, three had been out 3-5 years, and 11 had been out of the military over five years. Of the veterans who responded, 25 were male and eight were female. Combat zone experience was high among respondents, which reflects the fact that the military has been involved in one conflict or another for over a decade. Of the 33 respondents 25 had been deployed to a combat zone, including six of the eight female veterans. There was a fairly even mixture of veteran students attending two or four year postsecondary institutions as well. Of the respondents, 10 were attending a 2-year institution and 13 were attending a 4-year institution. The rest were either imminently MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 44 graduating, starting school the following semester, or were just not enrolled in school at the time of the survey. The military branch breakdown of the respondents were 10 that had served in the Army, four from the Navy, eight from the Air Force, seven from the Marines, and four who had served in a reserve component. Overall Experience in Higher Education When asked iftheir overall experience in higher education had been positive, nearly 73% either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, and the remaining 27% disagreed or strongly disagreed. As to whether their school was working to accommodate veterans, 66% either agreed or strongly agreed and the remaining 33% disagreed or strongly disagreed. And finally as to whether veteran programs/benefits have improved since they have been at school, nearly 56% either agreed or strongly agreed, while 44% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Open ended comments from this section included one from a veteran who said, "Seems to be more difficult once you've been identified as a veteran." Another veteran commented, "Some departments are set up in such a way that Veterans who use their G .I. Bill do not get the full benefits. ([e.g.] the Automotive Department) Some of the classes have 25 hours of seat time for 1 week with homework and is considered part time." Website Navigation The respondents overwhelmingly agreed that their respective college/university website was easy to find online, with 100% that either agreed or strongly agreed. Once they found the site 75% either agreed or strongly agreed that the site was easy to navigate, MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 45 while 25% reported a negative experience and either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the website was easy to locate. When it came to veteran-specific webpages, 60% either agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to locate veteran-specific webpages and that they were either in one location or easily linked. Yet 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and found the webpages more difficult to locate. The respondents that either agreed or strongly agreed that veteran webpages were clear and understandable was about 73%, with about 27% that disagreed or strongly disagreed. Finally, over 93% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that contact information for Veterans Services was easy to find on the website. When asked to comment about website navigation, one veteran said, "Veterans Services website need[s] a complete makeover. Veterans Upward [B]ound need[s] some life to it, graphics. Still have very old pictures. Out of date. Its 2015 folks." Admissions A clear 100% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that online admissions application was easily fotmd, clear, and understandable. Over 68% either agreed or strongly agreed that the application clearly asked them to identify as a military member or veteran, with approximately 31 % that either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the application clearly asked them to identify as a military member or veteran. The vast majority of the veterans, over 96%, either agreed or strongly agreed that the admissions office was easy to locate on their campus if needed. Approximately 63% either agreed or strongly agreed that the admissions staff was helpful, were able to answer MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE veteran related questions, and understood veteran related procedures while over 36% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 46 Just over 53% of the veterans either agreed or strongly agreed that the procedure to transfer in credit for military experience was clear and understandable, while nearly 47% disagreed or strongly disagreed. As to whether their respective school offered veteran-specific orientations or information sessions, approximately 53% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Nearly 47% agreed or strongly agreed. When asked whether the overall admissions process was veteran friendly, nearly 70% either agreed or strongly agreed that it was, while about 30% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the process was veteran friendly. Comments on admissions included one veteran who said, [About the application] "the box that asks if you are a vet is a small box that most vets don't see." [As to whether the staff was helpful] "When you ask any questions on the phone, as soon as you say you're a vet, they transfer you to Veteran Services, even though your question is about admissions." [In reference to veteran orientation] "Some orientations include a portion for vets, but most don't." Another veteran commented, "I honestly can't remember if Veteran status was an option on the application. The local VA office had to add me as Veteran with school. There is a disconnect somewhere." Enrollment Services When asked about enrollment services, over 85% ofrespondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the online registration process was clear and understandable, with just over 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Nearly 94% of the veterans either agreed or strongly agreed that the registrar's office was easy to locate on their respective campus. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 47 The veterans were also asked if they had access to an advisor for help planning and choosing courses, as well as assistance in enrolling. Approximately 74% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed, with just about 26% that disagreed or strongly disagreed. As to whether the registrar office staff were familiar with veteran­specific needs, only about 45% either agreed or strongly agreed, and 55% didn't feel their needs were met. Over 78% of the veterans surveyed either agreed or strongly agreed that enrollment deadlines, add/drop periods, and the semester schedules were made clear, while approximately 22 % disagreed or strongly disagreed. One veteran said concerning enrollment services, "I specifically had to ask for an adviser with a military background to assist me. It was difficult to process to figure out what classes I needed to finish my degree with the military. The other advisers gave a generic tutorial on general education classes which was helpful to a point. To be fair it was extremely difficult to get assistance from the military." Another veteran commented, "I could find no specific counselor to meet with to plan a course schedule. That was left up to the advisor for the degree you majored in. Getting a meeting with that person is absolutely ridiculous and time consuming. Not easy in the slightest." Veterans Services Office When it came to ease of locating Veterans Services on campus, almost 85% either agreed or strongly agreed that it was no problem, with the remaining 15% who either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Some 78% ofrespondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the staff was friendly, welcoming and knowledgeable on GI Bill® benefits, but the 22% remaining either disagreed or strongly disagreed. The majority of the veterans, just over 77%, either agreed or strongly agreed that procedures for certification of GI MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE Bill® benefits clear and understandable, or they were explained adequately. The remaining 23% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Nearly 81 % of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the Veterans Services staff helpful in giving guidance for registration each semester, with the remaining 19% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 48 When asked if problems with GI Bill® benefits were resolved for them in a timely manner, over 84% indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed, with 16% that either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Comments about Veterans Services Office included one veteran who said, "The Veterans Student Services were very helpful, lmowledgeable and professional." While another commented, "The Veterans Services Office was able to answer my questions and refer me to the appropriate services I required, however, I wondered why other school officials hadn't referred me to Veterans Services first. I could have avoided a lot of confusion and wasted time." Faculty Awareness, Classroom Environment, and Campus Life When asked about whether their school had offered a reintegration program to help with transition, about 57% indicated that their school did not offer this type of program, and either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Only 43% either agreed or strongly agreed that a reintegration program was offered. Over 63% of the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their professors were aware of veteran resources on campus, with the remaining 3 7% who agreed or strongly agreed that professors were aware. Some 70% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their instructors/professors interacted well with them, and MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 49 honored the veterans' confidentiality requests. The remaining 30% disagreed or strongly disagreed. When asked if veterans were aware of instructors being trained about what the military experience is like, over 60% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the instructors had been trained, and only 40% agreed or strongly agreed that they were. As to whether the respondents felt they were treated fairly and respectfully on campus, almost 82% agreed or strongly agreed. The remaining 18% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. About 87% agreed or strongly agreed that they were allowed to share their military experiences when appropriate, while the remaining 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Of the veterans that responded, 80% agreed or strongly agreed that allowances were made for specific veteran seating needs. Nearly 82% agreed or strongly agreed that classroom populations are manageable in size and encourage learning, while the remaining 18% veterans disagreed or strongly disagreed. Peer mentoring programs allow veterans to get assistance with coursework, directly from other veteran students. Just over 64% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their school had a peer mentoring program for support of veterans, while almost 36% disagreed or strongly disagreed. In addition, over 65% of the veterans agreed or strongly agreed that their school had a relationship with veteran service organizations, such as The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans ofForeign Wars, that can assist veterans in obtaining further benefits, with the remaining respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. Also, about 87% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their school allowed the Veterans Administration (VA) to have a MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE presence on campus to assist with things such as mental health counseling, education benefits, veterans with disabilities' benefits. 50 In regards to Student Veteran Organizations (SVO), about 47% agreed or strongly agreed that they were aware their school had a SVO on campus, but about 53% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Many colleges offer a "one-stop-shop" for any resource on campus related to veterans, such as Veteran Services, VUB, Admissions, Registration, and Disability Services. This helps the veterans by providing a streamlined process for administrative offices and support resources needed while applying for and attending college. Just 58% of veterans agreed or strongly agreed that their school offered such a resource, while the remaining 42% disagreed or strongly disagreed. When asked to comment on faculty awareness, classroom environment, and campus life, a veteran commented "A one-stop shop for veterans/military issues would be very beneficial." Another veteran commented, "The VA office was moved from the student services building to a building on the outskirt of campus. It should be co-located with other student services. Their current facilities are inadequate for study or parking. I pushed hard to assist and establish a veteran student organization with no luck. Finally, it was hard transition from the "military life" and it would have been nice to have a fellow Vet as a mentor." Another veteran said, "Veterans services are on opposite ends of the campus and not located "on campus" per se. The Veterans Services Office used to be located in the administration building on campus and it was more convenient to walk between the registrars, cashier, and Vet services when problems or questions arose, but MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE last summer is was moved outside of the building and it now seems disconnected from the school." Service-connected Disability Of those that responded to this question of the survey, just over 35% (11) indicated that they had been diagnosed with PTSD, TBI, or a combination of the two illnesses. Nearly 83% of these veterans with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that the staff of Disability Services, at their campus, were friendly, welcoming, and had an understanding of veteran-specific disabilities. 51 About 71 % of the veterans with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that Disability Services staff had an understanding of the cognitive difficulties related to PTSD/TBI, and were trained to counsel veterans, while the remaining veterans with disabilities disagreed or strongly disagreed. As to whether Disability Services helped veterans deal with the stigma related to being "disabled", almost 74% agreed or strongly agreed, and the remaining 26% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Over 82% of the veterans with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that Disability Services coordinated with the VA to properly accommodate the veterans with disabilities on campus, while almost 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Just over 83% of veterans with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that classroom accommodations are given to veterans with PTSD/TBI diagnoses, while nearlyl 7% disagreed or strongly disagreed. About 84% agreed or strongly agreed that test-taking and test location accommodations were given to veterans with these diagnoses, with the remaining that either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Finally, when asked whether Disability Services collaborates to educate other campus professionals MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 52 about veterans with disabilities' needs, 80% of the veterans with disabilities agreed or strongly agreed that they did, and 20% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Of those veterans that indicated they had either PTSD or TBI, one commented "If provisions are available at Weber State University for Disabled Veterans I am not aware of them." And finally, another commented "I experienced Sexual trauma in the military and received disability accommodations finally after three years at college. It would be helpful to have a female Psychologist for female veterans. I don't feel comfortable sharing my anxiety issues with a male." Table 2. Summary of responses by survey section, with the totals by section and response type. Section Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Survey Sections Responses Agree Disagree a. Overall 93 27 34 14 18 Experience (3) b. Website 155 36 88 22 9 Navigation (7) c. College 224 48 111 43 22 Admissions (7) d. Enrollment 152 29 86 26 11 Services ( 5) e. Veteran Services 153 57 67 20 9 Office (5) f. Faculty 388 82 167 92 47 Awareness/ Classroom Environment (13) g. Service- 147 64 53 12 18 connected Disability (7) MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION 53 As seen in the review of previous research on this subject, the study found that with the passing of the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, colleges and universities have seen the greatest influx of veterans in higher education since the end of the Vietnam conflict, some 40 years ago (Cook & Kim, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). In research by Zoli, Maury, and Fay (2015) of the more than 8,500 military members and veterans who participated, 92% indicated that education should play a role in post-service transition. This new GI Bill® has resulted in higher veteran enrollment, and has required colleges and universities to adjust policies and procedures to meet the needs of these veterans. The previous research found that most colleges and universities across the country were inadequately prepared to meet the needs of this new influx of veterans and had been reactive in making the necessary adjustments to meet their needs (Brown & Gross, 2011). Research also showed a need for improvement in areas related to veterans such as assisting veterans' transition to college, developing faculty and staff awareness of veteran specific issues, meeting the needs of veterans with military related disabilities, assisting re-enrolling veterans, and providing peer to peer experiences for veterans (Cook & Kim, 2009). Previous research also suggested that institutions that encourage veterans to self­identify early, ensure veteran program administrators are adequately trained, and that other staff and administration are trained on the new GI Bill®, tend to have more effective programs for veterans. The university should employ disability and mental health staff who understand veterans' issues, have consistent policies for college credit for military MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE training, have veteran specific orientations and informational sessions, and encourage veteran student organizations on campus (Steel, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010). 54 The current study provided an opportunity to obtain the perspective of the veterans, in one western state, as to how their respective college or university was adapting to this change. The study sought to determine veteran/veterans with disabilities' perspectives as to what extent they have been integrated and accommodated at the community college and university level. In addition, the purpose of the study was to also determine how veterans with disabilities perceive overall services for injured veterans on campus, accommodations and disability services for veterans, and supportive services that allow veterans to persist and graduate from a post-secondary school. Specifically the study sought to determine to what extent the institutions of higher education have developed a veteran friendly campus, determine to what extent does the institutional faculty and staff have an adequate understanding of the military experience, are reintegrating veterans into the classroom and into higher education in general, and to determine to what extent do the institutions adequately understand and accommodate veterans with service-connected disabilities such at PTSD and TBI. What the current study demonstrated is that progress has been made in relation to this study group but there is still room for improvement, and that colleges and universities should continue to move in a positive direction. These institutions should focus on improving all aspects of interaction with military veterans to include improving the veteran experience through proper integration, user friendly web-based resources, veteran-specific admissions and registration procedures, proactive veteran services, faculty and staff awareness and training, developing a welcoming classroom MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE environment, improved veteran integration in campus life, and also improved disability services and accommodations for veterans witb disabilities. Implications of the Results 55 There are very meaningful reasons why institutions should do tbe best job possible when serving, managing, and educating veterans. As pointed out in the previous research reviewed, Brown and Gross (2011) showed that successful management of military students brings benefits to all involved: the student; the academic institution; and the community. The study sought to measure how the veterans felt that the institutions of higher education were doing in that respect. Overall, the results of tbe current research on the veteran perspective was quite positive. The survey results indicated that, in general, there were 949 (72 % ) positive responses to survey questions and 363 (28%) negative responses (Appendix C). This by no means indicates that there have been no negative impacts on veterans at the institutions involved, but it demonstrates tbat strides are being made in a positive direction when it comes to the veteran experience at the these schools. A portion of the survey addressed the research question related to how the veterans felt their respective college or university had developed a veteran friendly campus through streamlining the admission, enrollment, and veteran services processes. When it came to the admissions process, most of the survey participants felt that the admissions process was generally smooth and could be viewed as veteran-friendly, but over one-third of the veterans thought that the admissions staff was not helpful and lacked understanding of veteran-specific issues. Also a clear procedure for transferring credit for military experience is warranted, based on tbe nearly one-half of veterans MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 56 unsatisfied with that process. This would indicate that staff training related to veteran­specific issues and problems that arise could reduce that level of dissatisfaction. Another possible option would be to have a staff member with military experience available to assist veterans. The admissions process is likely the first stumbling block that these veterans have in starting their higher education journey, so it is incumbent on the institutions to ensure veterans are welcomed, treated fairly, and that veteran needs are being addressed. Once admitted to an institute of higher education, veterans must tackle the enrollment process and find coursework suited for their chosen academic major. This can be a daunting task for veterans, many of whom have never been in a higher education environment. Over one quarter of the veterans responding to the survey felt that they did not have access to an advisor that would work with them in choosing and enrolling in courses. It is critical that veterans are advised properly, given the fact that their GI Bill® benefits are finite. Veterans cannot afford to waste time or money on coursework unrelated to their major. In addition over one half of the respondents felt that the registrar staff was unfamiliar with veteran-specific needs. If a staff member is unaware of the VA policy (e.g. against paying for courses unrelated to the veteran's major) and improperly advises the veteran, then it may create financial for the veterans. Again, training on veteran related issues and/or the presence of a veteran staff member may mitigate these kinds of problems. Veterans Services is a critical part of the veteran experience on the community college and university campus, especially for those veterans using GI Bill® benefits. It can become financially difficult on veterans if they have issues with receiving their MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE educational benefits, so Veterans Services must be efficient when certifying veterans' benefits. 57 Most survey responses relating to Veteran Services were positive, but some found that veteran services was hard to locate, that the staff was unfriendly, and that the process for obtaining GI Bill® benefits was not clear or explained properly. Some also had trouble getting proper guidance from Veteran Services during registration each semester, or when veterans experienced problems with receiving GI Bill®benefits, the problems were not resolved in a timely manner. Not all veterans will be satisfied with how a particular process unfolds, but veterans utilizing Veteran Services on campus should feel that the staff there are on the veterans' side to the best extent possible. Veteran Services should viewed by the veterans as an ally on campus, and staff should do the utmost to accommodate veteran needs. This office should be a safe haven where veterans can come for support when they are frustrated by other campus services and procedures. Interaction with instructors and professors make up most of the personal contact veterans have in higher education. Ideally they should have some knowledge about veteran issues and resources available. The second research question attempted to determine if veterans felt faculty and staffhad an adequate understanding of the experiences of military veterans. Additionally, the study attempted to determine veterans' perception as to whether the faculty and staff were aware of helpful ways of integrating or reintegrating them into the classroom and into higher education in general. Some of the difficulties that veterans face in higher education involve under informed MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE faculty, their negative classroom experiences, and general non-involvement in campus life and activities. 58 The researcher believes that it is critical to the long-term viability of veteran students, for them to be understood, accommodated, and integrated into these institutions. Over one half of the veterans indicated that their respective school either did not have an integration program, or if it did they were unsatisfied with results. In addition, nearly two thirds of veteran respondents indicated that their instructors and professors were unaware of veteran resources on campus. All staff and faculty should be aware of resources that benefit veterans, which can serve to make things easier on the veteran, staff, and faculty. The study results indicate that over one half of the veterans in the survey perceived that the faculty were not adequately trained to understand the military experience. Some colleges across the country have establish a "basic training" type program for faculty to help them be more aware of different aspects of the military experience, to help them to understand and be sympathetic. For example Purdue University, and the Veterans Success Center there, offers "Green Zone Training" to discuss what it means to serve and what veterans bring to campus. With fewer and fewer staff and faculty having military experience themselves, a program like this would be beneficial and enlightening as more veterans pursue higher education. On a positive note, the veterans overwhelmingly felt that they were treated fairly and respectfully, and were given the opportunity to share their experiences when they felt comfortable doing so in class. Approximately 30 % of the veterans who responded did not feel that the faculty honored the veterans' confidentiality requests. Some veterans really want to blend into MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 59 the fabric of the campus and do not feel comfortable being singled out or identified as a military veteran. Faculty should be sensitive to this on an individual basis, and avoid calling attention to a veteran who may not want to be identified that way. Some veterans are uncomfortable speaking of their military experiences in class, or relating it to their education, especially if it involves combat experiences. Although if comfortable in sharing, veterans' experiences can contribute to classroom learning environment and to the learning experience of all students overall, so faculty need to be sensitive and aware. Peer mentoring and student veteran organizations are other programs that have been beneficial to veterans on campuses across the country. Veterans learning and being mentored by other veterans can be another way to increase retention of veterans at the respective college or university. Organized student groups can give similar kinds of support to veterans (e.g. Student Veterans of America). An experienced veteran in college can help newer student veterans get through the difficult times by showing these fellow veterans how they survived themselves. Over one third of the veterans in the survey did not feel that there was a sound peer mentoring program, or at least an effective one at their respective schools. In addition, over one half of the veterans in the study indicated that their school did not have an adequate student veteran's organization. This study also attempted to determine how veterans with disabilities perceived their college or university understood and accommodated veterans' disabilities, specifically those related to combat related issues such as PTSD and TBI. Recent casualty statistics reported to congress indicate that, approximately 118,829 military members/veterans deployed between 2000 and 2014 were diagnosed MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 60 with PTSD. During the same period 307,283 were diagnosed with some form ofTBI (Fischer, 2014). In the study by Zoli, Maury, and Fay (2015), the researchers reported over 3.9 million veterans had been identified as disabled by the Veterans Administration (VA). Of those, 43% were from the Gulf War era and beyond. Additionally, of the more than 8,500 respondents 58% reported a service related disability. Of the veterans that reported a service-connected disability, 79% indicated that the disability created obstacles for them as they transitioned to civilian life. In regards to pursuing higher education, 12% indicated the disability hindered beginning higher education, and 28% said the disability created obstacles in completing higher education (Zoli, Maury, and Fay, 2015). It is critical that colleges and universities across the country find ways to accommodate these military veterans who may be attending to their institutions, but especially those with these unseen disabilities. The Disability Services (DS) offices on campus will need to take a leading role in this accommodation. The DS staff should be at the forefront when it comes to service-connected veterans with disabilities. In this study, of the veterans who identified as being disabled due to PTSD and/or TB!, over 82% agreed that DS staff at their campus were friendly and welcoming, and had an understanding of veteran-specific disabilities. It was by no means unanimous, with about 18% disagreeing, so there is room for improvement. The DS staff also seemed to have at least some understanding of the cognitive difficulties of those veterans experiencing PTSD/TBI issues, and these veterans felt the staff had adequate training to counsel them in relation to these issues. The DS staff was also widely viewed as being helpful to veterans struggling with the stigma that is felt by being called "disabled". MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 61 The results indicate that most of the veterans with disabilities were receiving accommodations in the classroom, and for test-taking, as well as these veterans feeling positive about how the DS staff educated other campus professionals about veterans with disabilities' needs. There were some veterans that disagreed, but the majority seemed to have had a positive experience with Disability Services. There were 14 7 combined responses to survey questions related to veteran disability, with 117 (79%) being positive in nature. The DS office and staff seem to be serving veterans adequately, with room to improve. Limitations Although the surveys were conducted in only one western state, the researcher believes that the results can be viewed in the broader context in that improvements are being made in higher education for this new influx of veterans. Others may argue that the results of the research are not adequately generalizable based on the sample size. The researcher agrees that the response rate for the survey was not ideal, but given that overall response rates for online surveys are traditionally low, the researcher felt that there were enough data to proceed. Veterans tend to focus on what directly effects their education, and therefore if the veteran does not see a relation to coursework and grades they tend to be less interested in extracurricular inquiries (Quaye & Harper, 2014). In reviewing the demographic data, it appears that there was a well-represented sample of our military, in years served, branch of anned service, deployment to combat zones, and gender. There appeared to be few if any over-represented veterans in the specific categories, other than females (see Table 1). MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 62 Future Research The study can be expanded by conducting future research to include more colleges and universities in different regions of the country. Including more veterans in varied geographical and demographically diverse areas of the country would build a broader picture of how higher education is doing in serving, managing, and educating veterans. Future research could also include the use of varied survey tools including online surveys, mailed surveys, convenience surveys, one-on-one interviews, and group discussions. The study sought to measure only the perspective of the veterans from the beginning of the research project, using a convenience sample of Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) participants. Future research could also measure the perspectives of institutional staff and faculty as well as a broader spectrum of veterans, in order to identify any possible disconnects and common ground between veteran and institutional perspectives. An institution of higher education may believe that it is doing all it can to adequately serve veterans, whereas the veterans feel that there is room to improve. This needs analysis was undertalcen to inform the institutions of higher education regarding the perspectives of military veterans. It will infonn universities, and the entities that support those veterans, ways to improve the veteran experience. Additionally, the results will provide a veteran perspective in hopes of better meeting the needs of college and university veterans. It is recommended that future research will review these data and aslc additional questions of the veterans and university faculty and staff to better support those who have served on the country's behalf. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 63 Summary The study began with historical background and context on the GI Bill® from the beginning in 1944, to the present configuration. With the newest iteration of the GI Bill® and the generous benefits to veterans, colleges and universities are seeing higher enrollment by military veterans than they have since the conclusion of the Vietnam Conflict (Cook & Kim, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). The literature review showed that institutions of higher education were ill prepared to meet the needs of this new influx of veterans, and had been reacting to the challenge rather than being proactive and anticipating changes that needed to be made. In addition, due to higher rates of survivability in combat, many of the veteran students entering higher education now have returned from conflict with injuries and illnesses such as PTSD and TBI. Previous research showed that nearly 85% of those receiving combat injuries are surviving due to advances in protective body armor, use of coagulants, and advances in the military medical evacuation system (Madaus, Miller II, & Vance, 2009). In the current study, the researcher sought to measure the veteran perspective as to how the institutions of higher education are doing in relation to serving veterans in general, as well as veterans with disabilities. The study findings were more positive than expected, based on prior research, with 949 (72%) positive responses to survey questions and 363 (28%) negative responses (see appendix A). This could plainly be an indicator that the institutions of higher education in the western state involved are doing better than elsewhere, or a broader indicator that the veteran experience is improving generally. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 64 The current research showed that improvements were being made, based on the perspective of the veterans involved. The responses to the research survey were generally positive, with some exceptions. This indicates that the institutions where these veterans have attended, are making strides in a positive direction. Responses from the survey participants did show that there are many areas relating to veterans that have room for improvement though. It is the intent of the researcher to make these results available to higher education institutions, in order to facilitate the needed improvements. The results also indicated that most of the veterans with disabilities were mostly positive about the institutions meeting veterans with disabilities' needs. There were some veterans that disagreed, but the majority seemed to have had a positive experience with Disability Services on campus. As reported earlier in the study, there were 14 7 combined responses to survey questions related to veteran disability, with 117 (79%) being positive in nature. The DS office and staff seem to be serving veterans adequately, with room to improve. The researcher has concluded that there are still challenges ahead for veterans in higher education, but that the process in moving in a positive direction. Veterans are seeing these improvements and are becoming more optimistic in their outlook. The more optimistic that veterans become, the better the retention and graduation rates will become. Colleges and universities must work hand-in-hand with the veterans to improve the experience for faculty, staff, and student veterans in the future. The individtial veteran student, the higher education institutions, and the community at large will benefit from these improvements. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE REFERENCES 65 American Council on Education (2010). Accommodating student veterans with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder: Tips for campus faculty and staff. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Accommodating­Student- Veterans-with-Traumatic-Brain-Injury-and-Post-Traumatic-Stress­Disorder. pdf Boudah, D. J. (2011). Conducting educational research: Guide to completing a major project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Brown, P.A., & Gross, C. (2011). Serving those who have served-Managing veteran and military best practices. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 45- 49. doi:l0.1080/07377363.2011.544982 Burnett, S. E., Segoria, J. (2009). Collaboration for military transition students from combat to college: It takes a community. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1), 53-58. Church, T. E. (2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related injuries and the long road back home. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1 ), 43-52. Compansol, 2012. Bltunen® software. Retrieved from http://compansol.com/product.php Cook, B. J., & Kim, Y. (2009). From soldier to student: Easing the transition of service members on campus. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news­room/ Documents/From-Soldier-to-Student-Easing-the-Transition-of-Service­Members- on-Campus. pdf MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE Department of Education (2014). Veterans Upward Bound. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triovub/index.html Department of Veterans Affairs (2014a). Education: Benefits for veterans education. Retrieved from http://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/ABR-Education­FY13- 09262014.pdf Department of Veterans Affairs (2014b). Service-connected disabled veterans by disability rating group: FY 1986 to FY 2013. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/V eteran _Population.asp Department of Veterans Affairs (2013). Education and training: History and timeline. Retrieved from http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp DiRamio, D., & Spires, M. (2009). Partnering to assist disabled veterans in transition. New Directions for Student Services, 126, 25-34. doi:l0.1002/ss.319 66 Ellison, M. L., Mueller, L., Smelson, D., Corrigan, P. W., Torres Stone, R. A., Bokhour, B. G., Najavits, L. M., Vessela, J.M., & Drebing, C. (2012). Supporting the educational goals of post-9/11 veterans with self-reported PTSD symptoms: A needs assessment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35(3), 209-217. Fischer, H. (2014). A guide to U.S. Military casualty statistics: Operation new dawn, operation Iraqi freedom, and operation enduring freedom. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf Grossman, P. D. (2009). Forward with a challenge: Leading our campuses away from the perfect storm. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1 ), 4-9. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE Madaus, J. W., Miller II, W. K., & Vance, M. L. (2009). Veterans with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1), 10-17. Mettler, S. (2005). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Military.com (2006). GI Bill turns 62. Retrieved from http://www.military.com/N ewsContent/O, 13319,1023 83 ,00.html Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy ofresponse rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314. 67 Ostovary, F., & Dapprich, J. (2011). Challenges and opportunities of operation enduring freedom/operation Iraqi freedom veterans with disabilities transitioning into learning and workplace enviromnents. New Directions for Adult Continuing Education, 132, 63-73. doi:I0.1002/ace.432 Post-9/11 GI Bill overview (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.military.com/education/gi­bill/ new-post-911-gi-bill-overview.html Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY: Routledge. Radford, A. W. (2009). Military service members and veterans in higher education: What the new GI Bill may mean for postsecondary institutions. Retrieved from http://www. acenet. edu/news-room/Documents/Military-Servi ce-Members-and- V eterans-in-Higher-Education. pdf MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F.A. (2010). Student veterans in transition: Re-enrolling after war zone deployments. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 ( 4), 431-458. 68 Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F.A. (2009). Supporting student veterans in transition. New Directions for Student Services, 126, 25-34. doi:l0.1002/ss.313 Steele, J. L., Salcedo, N., & Coley, J. (2010). Service members in school: Military veterans' experiences using the Post 9/11 GI Bill and pursuing postsecondary education. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news­roorn/ Documents/Service-Mernbers-in-School-Executi ve-Surnmary-2010. pdf Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. H. (2008). Invisible wounds: Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist Recovery. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/darn/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND MG720.pd f Vance, M. L., & Miller II, W. K. (2009). Serving wounded warriors: Current practices in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1 ), 18-35. Zoli, C., Maury, R., & Fay, D. (2015). Missing perspectives: Servicemembers' transition from service to civilian life. Institute for Veterans & Military Family Members, Syracuse University. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE APPENDICES Appendix A: Veterans Survey Questions Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter Appendix C: Survey Results Spreadsheet 69 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE APPENDIX A Veterans Survey Questions Veteran Experience Questions and Comments All survey questions (except open-ended comments) will have one of the following responses: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, Not Applicable (N/A). a. Overall Experience in Higher Education 1. My overall experience on the campus has been positive. 2. My school seems to be working to accommodate military veterans. 3. Veteran programs/benefits have improved since I've been at my school. b. Website Navigation 4. The website for the college/university was easy to find online. 5. Once fmmd, the website was easy to navigate once found. 70 6. It was easy to find veteran specific web pages, they were one location and/or were easily linked. 7. Information on the veteran pages was clear and tmderstandable. 8. Contact information for Veteran Services was easy to find. c. Admissions 9. The online admissions application was easy to find, and was clear and understandable. 10. The application clearly asks individuals to identify as a military member or veteran. 11. When needed the admissions office was easy to locate. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 12. The admissions staff was helpful, able to answer veteran related questions, and understand veteran related procedures. 71 13. Procedures for military experience transfer credits were clear and understandable. 14. The college/university offered veteran specific orientations of information sessions. 15. Overall the admissions process was veteran friendly. d. Enrollment 16. The online course registration process was clear and understandable. 17. The registrar's office was easy to find on campus. 18. Veterans have access to an advisor to help plan, choose proper courses, and enroll in classes. 19. Staff from the registrar's office is familiar with veteran-specific needs. 20. Enrollment deadlines, add/drop periods, and semester schedule were made clear. e. Veteran Services Office 21. The Veterans Services Office was easy to find on campus. 22. The Veterans Services staff were friendly and welcoming, were knowledgeable with all aspects of the GI Bill®. 23. Campus procedures for GI Bill® certification were clear and understandable or were explained. 24. The Veteran Services staff were helpful in giving guidance for registration each semester. 25. Problems with my GI Bill® benefits were resolved in a timely manner. f. Faculty Awareness/Classroom Environment/Campus Life MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 72 26. The college/university offered a (re)integration program to help veterans transition into higher education. 27. Instructors/Professors are familiar with veteran resources on campus. 28. Instructors/Professors interact well with veteran students and honor veterans' confidentiality requests. 29. Instructors/Professors have been trained on what the military experience is like. 30. Military veteran students are treated fairly and respectfully on campus. 31. Instructors/Professors allow veterans to share military experiences when appropriate. 32. Allowances are made for specific veteran seating needs when necessary. 33. Class populations are manageable in size and encourage learning. 34. The college/university has a peer mentoring program providing veteran to veteran support. 35. The college/university has a relationship with Veteran Service Organizations (American Legion, DAV, VFW, etc.). 36. There is an established veteran student organization on campus. 37. The college/university allows the Veterans Administration (VA) to have a presence on campus. 38. The college/university has a "one stop shop" where veterans can go for services. Disabled Veteran Experience Questions and Comments g. Disability Services 1. The Disability Services staff was friendly and welcoming, and understands veteran specific disabilities. MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 2. Disability Services staff understands cognitive difficulties related to PTSD/TBI, and have been trained to counsel veterans with PTSD/TBI. 3. Disability Services helps veterans to deal with the stigma related to being "disabled". 4. Disability Services coordinate with the VA to properly acconnnodate disabled veterans. 5. Classroom acconnnodations are given to veterans with documented PTSD/TBI diagnoses. 6. Test taking and testing location accommodations are given to veterans with documented PTSD/TBI diagnoses. 7. Disability Services staff collaborates well with other campus professionals to educate them on disabled veteran needs. 73 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE APPENDIXB WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Institutional Review Board April 29, 2015 Daniel Czech MC 4401 Weber State University Ogden, UT 84408 Daniel, Your project entitled "The Military Veteran Experience in Higher Education" has been reviewed and is approved as written. The project was reviewed as "exempt" because it involves using curriculum and assessments which would normally be used. Subjects are considered adults and may choose not to participate. Informed consent is required for participation. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate. No individual subject data will be revealed. All subject information will be confidential. Dr. Williams is the chair of the committee who will oversee this study. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D.) You may proceed with your study when district/site approval is given. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the !RB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the !RB and possible suspension of the project. A final copy of your application will remain on file with the !RB records. If you need further assistance or have any questions, call meat 626-7370 or e-mail me at lgowans@weber.edu. Sincerely, Linda Gowans, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee 74 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE Title of Project: Primary Investigator(s): Approval Number: Reviewer: Date: April 29, 2015 The Military Veteran Experience in Higher Education Daniel Czech 15-ED-088 Linda Gowans, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board Education Subcommittee COMMITTEE ACTION YOUR PROPOSAL (PROJECT) AND CONSENT DOCUMENTS HA VE BEEN RECEIVED AND CLASSIFIED BY THE HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH COMMITTEE AS: _High Risk __ Moderate Risk _X _Low Risk BY THE FOLLOWING PROCESS: _Full board review_ Expedited review_X_Exemption THE PROJECT HAS BEEN: _x Approved __ Not Approved COMMENTS: See Attached Approval Letter Linda Gowans, Ph.D. --- IRB EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR INVESTIGATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AFTER COMMITTEE ACTION 75 The federal regulations provide that after the committee has approved your study, you may not make any changes without prior committee approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subjects. Further, you must report to the committee any changes that you make and any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others that arise. 4/29/2015 REVIEW DATE MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 76 APPENDIXC Su rvey R esul tsS > prea ds heet Survey Section Question Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly N/A Total (excluding Number Agree Disagree N/A) a. Overall . . ·· .·.I ••••• . ·:· ' -' . ·. .·· .· . . . Experience . · . . ' . . . . .·· . . • 1 12 12 5 4 0 33 2 11 11 4 7 0 33 3 4 11 5 7 6 27 b. Website . . . . ·. ·.· . . . · . . •. Navigation . ··. . . . . . 4 10 22 0 0 1 32 5 5 19 8 0 1 32 6 5 13 9 3 3 30 7 6 16 4 4 3 30 8 10 18 1 2 2 31 College . ·. . · . c. . . . ' • . Admissions ·.·. . . · . . I . .· . 9 7 22 0 0 4 29 10 6 16 8 2 1 32 11 10 22 1 0 0 33 12 4 17 8 4 0 33 13 6 11 10 5 0 32 14 7 8 10 7 1 32 15 8 15 6 4 0 33 d. Enrollment . I . . ' ': < ·. I . I ' I . Services . .• . · . . .· . . . ·.· . ' . 16 5 19 2 2 4 28 17 9 21 2 0 0 32 18 7 16 7 1 0 31 19 1 12 11 5 3 29 20 7 18 4 3 0 32 e. Veteran Services Office 21 11 17 4 1 0 33 22 12 13 5 2 1 32 23 12 12 5 2 2 31 24 13 12 4 2 2 31 25 9 13 2 2 7 26 MILITARY VETERAN EXPERIENCE 77 f. Faculty Awareness/ Classroom Environment 26 1 11 9 7 5 28 27 3 8 13 6 3 30 28 8 13 4 5 2 30 29 2 5 14 6 6 27 30 6 21 5 1 0 33 31 8 19 3 1 2 31 32 7 13 4 1 8 25 33 11 16 4 2 0 33 34 7 11 8 2 4 28 35 5 14 8 2 3 29 36 5 10 10 7 1 32 37 9 18 2 2 1 31 38 10 8 8 5 1 31 g. Service-connected Disability 1 10 9 1 3 9 23 2 9 6 3 3 11 21 3 9 8 3 3 9 23 4 10 9 1 3 9 23 5 8 7 1 2 14 18 6 10 6 1 2 13 19 7 8 8 2 2 12 20