Take a Load off Fanny: Peer Mentors in Veterans Treatment Courts

• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419880289
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419880289

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(8) 1165 –1192

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419880289

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Take a Load off Fanny:

Peer Mentors in Veterans

Treatment Courts

Caroline I. Jalain1 and Elizabeth L. Grossi1

Abstract

This article explores the role of mentors in three veterans treatment courts (VTCs)

in two Midwestern states. VTCs have existed for more than 10 years and continue

to flourish across local, state, and federal jurisdictions. Yet, little is known about the

factors related to program compliance, completion, and reductions in recidivism.

Many VTCs consider peer mentors as a key link between the court workgroup,

program participants, and ultimately program outcomes. Thus, this study uses

individual and focus-group data from interviews with veteran mentors and VTC team

members along with field observations in various VTC settings to better understand

the role of peer mentors. The research begins with an overview of the recruitment,

selection, training, and retention of mentors. Secondly, the study examines the

impact of these mentor programs and concludes with recommendations for further

evaluation of the role of mentors and other key stakeholders regarding program

compliance, completion, and recidivism reduction.

Keywords

veterans treatment court, peer mentors, justice-involved veterans

Introduction

Influenced by drug courts, mental health courts, and juvenile courts, veterans treat-

ment courts (VTCs) use a nonadversarial workgroup approach to better meet the reha-

bilitative and reintegrative needs of justice-involved veterans (JIVs; Cartwright, 2011;

Cavanaugh, 2010). VTCs are specialty courts that oversee cases of military veterans

1University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Caroline I. Jalain, University of Louisville, 2301 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.

Email: caroline.jalain@louisville.edu

880289CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419880289Criminal Justice Policy ReviewJalain and Grossi

research-article2019

1166 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(8)

and active duty service members who experience difficult life situations such as unem-

ployment, substance use disorders mental health disorders, homelessness, inequality,

poverty, and strained personal relationships (Ahlin & Douds, 2016; Baldwin, 2017;

Bennett, Morris, Sexton, Bonar, & Chermack, 2018; Blodgett et al., 2015; Frederick,

2014; Russell, 2009). VTCs are geared toward providing court-supervised treatment

to veterans instead of incarceration and typically offer offenders a reduction or dis-

missal of charges upon program completion (Ahlin & Douds, 2016; Edelman, Berger,

& Crawford, 2016; Huskey, 2015; Peters & Belenko, 2011).

Early VTCs in Buffalo, Rochester, Houston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and Santa

Ana were established with the belief that veterans were particularly “worthy” family

and community members deserving special considerations by the courts. VTC

Advocates, like the National Institute of Corrections, believe that VTCs provide a

“second chance for vets who have lost their way” (Edelman et al., 2016; Shannon

et al., 2017, p. 57) with minimal financial and safety risks to the community. For oth-

ers, VTCs seem like the “right thing to do” for those who sacrificed so much for our

country (Russell as cited in Edelman et al., 2016, p. 15). Indeed, corporations, govern-

ment agencies, professional sports, and the general populace seem to have placed the

contemporary veteran in a distinct, perhaps revered, status (Devoy, 2017). This phe-

nomenon extends from adopting veteran’s apparel (e.g., camouflage clothing and uni-

forms, paracord bracelets, identification tags), vernacular (e.g., “I’ve got your six”

“leave no one behind,” “embrace the suck”), and “warrior” persona to creating vet-

eran-centric policies and programs.

Practitioners, researchers, and policymakers became more intrigued by the rela-

tionship between veterans and crime after World War II. Violent crime increased in

New York City and some noted the correlation between increased crime with the vol-

ume of returning combat veterans (Willbach, 1948). For the past several decades,

many studies have focused on the relationship between war trauma experienced by

returning veterans and criminal conduct (Hakeem, 1946; Lunden, 1952; Moore &

Kennedy, 2011). The seminal study of World War II soldiers combat experiences by

Stouffer et al. (1949) indicates that the varied sources of stress among veterans (e.g.,

sexual deprivations, lack of privacy, sleep deprivation, isolation, physical discomfort,

boredom, sensory overload, injury or loss of comrades, fatigue, frustration, uncer-

tainty, and lack of involvement or control in family matters) are important factors that

likely shape the behavior of returning veterans. Furthermore, these experiences may

contribute to antisocial, deviant, and/or criminal conduct among those transitioning

from the battlefields to a more peaceful environment.

The classic deprivations described so eloquently by Sykes (1958) and the associated

“pains” (p. 63) of total institutions like prisons, mental hospitals, and military environ-

ment emerged as key factors in unraveling the complexities of the criminality among

World War II and Vietnam War veterans (Pentland & Rothman, 1982; Tracy, Friel,

Kerper, & Killinger, 1971; Wright, Carter, & Cullen, 2005). However, many studies do

not find a direct relationship between military combat and veterans’ criminal propen-

sity. Instead, researchers often find associations between combat trauma with increased

likelihood of experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury