Varieties of Veterans’ Courts: A Statewide Assessment of Veterans’ Treatment Court Components

• Author: Daniel Howard,Anne S. Douds,Eileen M. Ahlin,Sarah Stigerwalt
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415620633
• Subject Matter: Articles for Special Issue

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2017, Vol. 28(8) 740 –769

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403415620633

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Articles for Special Issue

Varieties of Veterans' Courts:

A Statewide Assessment of

Veterans' Treatment Court

Components

Anne S. Douds1, Eileen M. Ahlin1, Daniel Howard1,

and Sarah Stigerwalt1

Abstract

Since the mid-2000s, there has been an upsurge in the development of Veterans’

Treatment Courts (VTCs) to support justice-involved veterans’ treatment needs

while also providing criminal justice supervision. Despite their prolific development

in recent years, there is a dearth of scholarly research on how VTCs are structured

and whether there are common components across courts. There is a need to

understand how VTCs are structured and operationally implemented to inform

additional program planning and evaluation. To bridge this gap in the literature, this

study provides a statewide assessment of the 17 VTCs operating in Pennsylvania,

identifies six common components, and highlights areas in which their implementation

diverges between courts to meet the specific needs of veterans across Pennsylvania.

The results of this study provide a baseline framework to aid future researchers

in conducting process and outcome evaluations by documenting and examining the

common components of VTCs.

Keywords

community corrections, courts, therapeutic jurisprudence

In response to growing awareness of veterans’ criminogenic risk factors and the unique

needs of justice-involved veterans, courts throughout the United States have been

capitalizing on the problem-solving court model to create Veterans’ Treatment Courts

1Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eileen M. Ahlin, School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA

17057, USA.

Email: ema105@psu.edu

620633CJPXXX10.1177/0887403415620633Criminal Justice Policy ReviewDouds et al.

research-article2015

Douds et al. 741

(VTCs; Russell, 2009; Smith, 2012). These relatively new courts provide a therapeu-

tic, alternative route through the criminal justice system for veterans who have been

charged with a crime and who request inclusion in this diversionary program (Holbrook

& Anderson, 2011). Through a collaborative effort among members of the courtroom

workgroup, Veterans Administration (VA) representatives, and social service provid-

ers, these VTCs address treatment needs of veterans in supportive, veteran-centric

environments (Ahlin & Douds, in press).

The VTC movement is now booming. Almost two thirds of all states have at least one

VTC, and one fifth of all states host 10 or more VTCs (Justice for Vets, 2015b). Preliminary

reports suggest that VTCs provide outcomes at least as promising at those experienced by

other problem-solving courts (Holbrook & Anderson, 2011; Slattery, Dugger, Lamb, &

Williams, 2013), perhaps because they are premised on research that demonstrates that, if

risk factors including combat-related injuries are resolved, criminal misconduct dissipates

or disappears (see Blonigen et al., 2014). Despite their rapid proliferation, there has been

little empirical study of VTC procedures and operations. To address this gap in knowl-

edge, the present study explores the components of 17 VTCs operating in Pennsylvania,

which has one of the biggest populations of veterans and had the largest number of VTCs

at the time of the study. We examine data primarily gathered from the nine Veteran Justice

Outreach Officers (VJOs) who serve all 17 VTCs in Pennsylvania. Although VJOs are

VTC team members, they are employed by the Veterans Administration (VA), rather than

the state court system, and they therefore provide a participant–observer viewpoint on

VTC operations. Recognizing that VJOs represent only one perspective on VTCs, we

supplement the data with in-depth, semistructured interviews with VTC team members

from one Pennsylvania VTC. Before we present the current study, we examine how VTCs

address the needs of justice-involved veterans.

Veterans Treatment Courts

VTCs are designed to respond to veterans’ unique cultural and experiential needs,

including second- and third-order effects arising from historically unprecedented

numbers of deployments per military service member (Belasco, 2014; Sollinger,

Fisher, & Metscher, 2008). Veterans, particularly those who have been in proximity to

combat, are at risk of developing severe and/or persistent psychosocial health prob-

lems as a direct or indirect result of their military experience (see Friedman, 2006;

Knudsen & Wingenfeld, 2015). Many veterans endure cumulative disadvantages of

mental health issues (Britton et al., 2012; Tanielian et al., 2008; Tsai, Rosenheck,

Kasprow, & McGuire, 2013), combat-related trauma (Holcomb et al., 2007), and sub-

stance use/abuse (Jacobson et al., 2008).

These risks factors increase veterans’ likelihood of coming into contact with the

criminal justice system (Blodgett, Fuh, Maisel, & Midboe, 2013; see also Shen, Arkes,

& Williams, 2012). In fact, veterans comprise about 9% of the inmate population

(Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2008), with recent studies estimating that more than 700,000

veterans are in the corrections system (McCaffrey, 2013; Mumola & Noonan, 2008),

and more than 5,000 veterans of recent conflicts are serving time in state and federal