A National Survey of Veterans Treatment Court Actors

• Author: Samantha Luna,Allison D. Redlich
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420911414
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420911414

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(2) 132 –161

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403420911414

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

A National Survey of Veterans

Treatment Court Actors

Samantha Luna1 and Allison D. Redlich1

Abstract

Several controversies surround Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs), such as

excluding veterans who commit violent offenses and requiring a direct relationship

between a veteran’s charges and mental health diagnosis. The aim of this study was

to examine VTC actors’ perceptions of these issues via a national survey. VTC

Judges, Coordinators, and Veterans Affairs liaisons were presented two randomly

assigned hypothetical clients and asked their perceptions of the hypothetical clients’

eligibility for VTC. The violent crime committed by the clients and their mental

health diagnoses were manipulated in these scenarios. Participants were also asked

for their perceptions of VTC issues and to describe the current practices of their

VTCs. Results indicated participants were supportive of the domestic violence client’s

participation in VTC, regardless of diagnosis, however most were not supportive of

the involuntary manslaughter clients’ participation. Implications for future research

and policy are discussed.

Keywords

veterans, violent crime, specialty courts

When reintegrating back into society military veterans face many challenges, such as

relating to individuals who have not served in the military, reconnecting with family

and friends, returning to a job, and adjusting to life without a clear chain of command

(i.e., fixed structure) and to a different pace of work and life (Veterans Affairs Mental

Health Services, n.d.). These reentry challenges can also be confounded by a veterans’

experiences of war, mental health issues, and alcohol dependency (Brown, 2011).

Increased difficulty reintegrating back into society and untreated mental health and

substance abuse also puts veterans at a heightened risk for criminal justice involvement

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Samantha Luna, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, 4400 University

Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.

Email: sluna2@gmu.edu

911414CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420911414Criminal Justice Policy ReviewLuna and Redlich

research-article2020

Luna and Redlich 133

(Brown, 2011). For example, veterans with traumatic brain injuries (TBI) or posttrau-

matic stress disorder (PTSD) who report coinciding anger/irritability are at an increased

risk for arrest and criminal justice involvement (Elbogen et al., 2012). To help serve

criminally charged veterans with symptoms of mental health disorders, cognitive

impairments, and/or substance abuse problems, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs)

were established about a decade ago.

VTCs, which are modeled after both Drug and Mental Health Courts, act as an

alternative to the traditional court model for eligible veterans (National Center for

State Courts, 2018). As an alternative to incarceration, veterans in VTC programs are

connected to treatment services, required to attend regular status hearings and be rou-

tinely drug tested, and connected to a volunteer veteran mentor for the duration of the

program (National Center for State Courts, 2018). VTCs have expanded at a rapid rate

since their creation in 2008 (Flatley et al., 2017), though, no standard structure for the

courts has been established (Cartwright, 2011). In fact, one VTC Judge was described

as being allowed to set up his VTC “any way he wanted” (American Bar Association,

2017). Inconsistency in the structure and procedures of VTCs has contributed to sev-

eral controversies surrounding these specialty courts (Yerramsetti et al., 2017). The

aim of this study is to better understand perceptions surrounding controversial VTC

issues from the actors directly involved in these specialty courts. Whereas past research

has addressed the practices and outcomes of VTCs (Erickson, 2016; Johnson et al.,

2016; Shannon et al., 2017; Tsai, Finlay, Flatley, et al., 2017; Tsai, Flatley, Wesley,

et al., 2017), to our knowledge, no research has addressed perceptions of controversial

VTC issues from the actors involved.

VTCs

The first VTC in the United States was created by Judge Robert Russell in 2008. Judge

Russell created the Buffalo, New York VTC with a mission to “successfully habilitate

veterans by diverting them from the traditional criminal justice system and providing

them with the tools they need in order to lead a productive and law-abiding lifestyle”

(Buffalo Veterans Treatment Court, n.d.). Judge Russell created the first VTC by

building upon his experiences presiding over both the Drug and Mental Health Courts

in his community; consequently, VTCs share many characteristics with these specialty

courts (Russell, 2015). There are now over 400 VTCs across the United States (Flatley

et al., 2017) and VTCs can be classified as their own separate court, or as a veterans

docket in a drug court, mental health court, or traditional criminal court (Johnson

et al., 2016). Like other specialty courts, research has found that both the structure and

function of these specialty courts varies considerably (Baldwin, 2015; Douds et al.,

2017; Erickson, 2016; Johnson et al., 2016).

Johnson et al. (2016) conducted a national inventory of VTCs in the United States

and found that court procedures and veterans’ eligibility requirements can vary signifi-

cantly by jurisdiction. Eligibility requirements considered by the courts can include

military discharge status (e.g., honorable vs dishonorable), military-related mental

health conditions, combat experience, criminal history, prior participation in specialty

courts, and the relationship between a veteran’s criminal charge and military service