The Availability and Utility of Services to Address Risk Factors for Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Veterans

• Author: David Smelson,Allison L. Rodriguez,Christine Timko,Joel Rosenthal,Jessica Britt,Andrea K. Finlay,Andrea Nevedal,Luisa Manfredi,Daniel M. Blonigen
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403416628601
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles for Special Issue

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2017, Vol. 28(8) 790 –813

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403416628601

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Articles for Special Issue

The Availability and Utility

of Services to Address Risk

Factors for Recidivism Among

Justice-Involved Veterans

Daniel M. Blonigen1,2, Allison L. Rodriguez1,

Luisa Manfredi1, Jessica Britt1,2, Andrea Nevedal1,

Andrea K. Finlay1, Joel Rosenthal3, David Smelson4,5,

and Christine Timko1,6

Abstract

The availability and utility of services to address recidivism risk factors among justice-

involved veterans is unknown. We explored these issues through qualitative interviews

with 63 Specialists from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Veterans Justice

Programs. To guide the interviews, we utilized the risk–need–responsivity (RNR)

model of offender rehabilitation. Specialists reported that justice-involved veterans

generally have access to services to address most RNR-based risk factors (substance

abuse, lack of positive school/work involvement, family/marital dysfunction, lack of

prosocial activities/interests), but have less access to services targeting risk factors of

antisocial tendencies and associates and empirically based treatments for recidivism

in VA. Peer-based services, motivational interviewing/cognitive-behavioral therapy,

and Veterans Treatment Courts were perceived as useful to address multiple risk

factors. These findings highlight potential gaps in provision of evidence-based care to

address recidivism among justice-involved veterans, as well as promising policy-based

solutions that may have widespread impact on reducing recidivism in this population.

1Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, CA, USA

2Palo Alto University, CA, USA

3Veterans Justice Programs, Veterans Health Administration, Menlo Park, CA, USA

4Bedford VA Medical Center, MA, USA

5University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA

6Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Daniel M. Blonigen, HSR&D Center for Innovation to Implementation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health

Care System, 795 Willow Road (152), Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA.

Email: Daniel.Blonigen@va.gov

628601CJPXXX10.1177/0887403416628601Criminal Justice Policy ReviewBlonigen et al.

research-article2016

Blonigen et al. 791

Keywords

justice-involved veterans, recidivism, risk–need–responsivity, empirically based

treatments

Introduction

Justice-involved veterans, defined as those detained by or under the supervision of the

criminal justice system, comprise a nontrivial proportion of the U.S. correctional pop-

ulation. Eight percent of individuals who are incarcerated in federal and state prisons

and city and county jails are veterans of the U.S. military—approximately 181,500

veterans (Bronson, Carson, Noonan, & Berzofsky, 2015). Notably, incarcerated veter-

ans likely represent only a fraction of the total number of justice-involved veterans

nationally, given that approximately 75% of the correctional population in the United

States resides in the community on probation or parole (Glaze, 2011).

Many veterans are caught in a cycle of contact with the criminal justice system. For

example, the majority of incarcerated veterans have at least one prior episode of incar-

ceration (Bronson et al., 2015; Noonan & Mumola, 2007), and in fiscal year 2012,

justice-involved veterans who were in contact with the Department of Veterans Affairs’

(VA) Veterans Justice Programs (VJPs) reported an average of eight prior arrests in

their lifetime (Department of VA, 2012). Consequently, reducing justice-involved vet-

erans’ risk for recidivism is a top priority for a number of national organizations,

including the VA (Blue-Howells, Clark, van den Berk-Clark, & McGuire, 2013), the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bronson et al., 2015), and the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration (Peters, Bartoi, & Sherman, 2008). Nonetheless,

key questions remain regarding the extent to which empirically supported risk factors

for recidivism are routinely addressed in the care of justice-involved veterans, and

whether these veterans have access to empirically based treatments (EBTs) for reduc-

ing recidivism (Blonigen et al., 2014; Timko et al., 2014).

Empirically Supported Principles for Reducing Recidivism Among

Justice-Involved Adults

The empirical literature on offender rehabilitation indicates that successful reintegra-

tion of justice-involved adults into the community, particularly in terms of reducing

risk for recidivism, is maximized through adherence to the principles of the risk–need–

responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a, 2010b; Andrews & Dowden,

2006; Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Ward, Melser, & Yates, 2007). The risk principle

states that level of service for justice-involved adults should be matched to their level

of risk for reoffending. The need principle states that case management efforts and

intervention targets for justice-involved adults should focus on dynamic (i.e., modifi-

able) risk factors of recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a, 2010b). The responsivity

principle states that interventions to reduce recidivism should be tailored to the unique