Predictors of Incarceration of Veterans Participating in U.S. Veterans’ Courts
Abstract
Objective:
Significant variability exists regarding the criteria and procedures used by different veterans’ courts (VCs) across the country. Limited guidance is available regarding which VC model has the most successful outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with incarceration during VC participation.
Methods:
This study used data for 1,224 veterans collected from the HOMES (Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System) database of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as data from a national phone survey inventory of all U.S. VCs. To identify variables associated with incarceration during VC participation, four backward conditional logistic regressions were performed.
Results:
The following variables were associated with higher rates of incarceration because of a veteran’s noncompletion of the VC program: charges of probation or parole violations, longer stays in the VC program, end of VC participation because of incarceration for a new arrest or case transfer by the legal system, and requiring mental health follow-up but not undergoing treatment. The following variables were associated with lower rates of incarceration: stable housing and participating in a VC program that referred veterans for substance abuse treatment.
Conclusions:
This study offers VCs a thorough review of an extensive set of recidivism data. Further investigation is necessary to understand the impact of VCs.
Veterans’ courts (VCs) were created to address the needs of veterans with mental illness who had been appearing in drug and mental health courts with increasing frequency. The VC concept was that for eligible offenses, a VC would permit the individual to be diverted from incarceration to a specified program of community-based treatment, regular court appearances, and veteran-specific interventions. Significant variability exists across jurisdictions regarding eligibility criteria, with some courts requiring a link between a veteran’s service, the illness, and the crime; some permitting violent felonies; and some accepting combat veterans from only certain eras. Some allow for pretrial diversion, whereas others are post plea (1). All require the veteran to have either a substance use disorder or other treatable psychiatric condition (2).
By definition, any participant in a VC program remains in the criminal justice system. Outcomes of successful participation are variable, with the most favorable allowing for dismissal of the relevant criminal charge. Unsuccessful participation might result in extension of program obligations, sanctions imposed by the court, or even removal from the program. Removal from the program would result in the veteran’s facing incarceration for the original criminal charge.
Since VCs began, growth has been exponential. For example, there were 24 VCs in January 2010 (1), 168 by December 2012 (3), and over 300 in more than 35 states as of January 1, 2014. To provide clinical and support services, the Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) program links many U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers with the local VC. In addition, a key component of most VCs is peer mentorship provided by other veterans (4).
Only one previous study of national inventory data on U.S. VCs was located (5). It found that more than 7,700 veterans had been admitted to VCs as of mid-2012, and slightly over two-thirds had successfully completed both the court and the treatment regimen. The length of involvement in the VC averaged 15 to 18 months.
A records review from the original Buffalo, New York, VC program indicated a 0% rate of criminal recidivism at the one-year point (4). A subsequent recidivism analysis revealed a one-year criminal recidivism rate of less than 2% in 14 courts (6). A separate recidivism study of one VC found that the longer a veteran stayed in the program, irrespective of the number of sanctions issued by the judge, the lower the veteran’s likelihood of arrest following separation (7). Researchers studying the same court examined judicial sanctions and found an association between veterans with substance use relapse and subsequent discharge from the VC program (8). Furthermore, in the same study, the infractions of failure to complete a task, substance use relapse, unexcused absence, and a missed hearing were associated with court-sanctioned jail time. Notably, Marlowe and Kirby (9) have shown that judicial sanctions need not be humiliating or painful in order to be effective. However, they should be administered immediately and be of sufficient intensity.
Despite the aforementioned work, available data are sparse. VCs are left with limited guidance regarding which court model might result in the lowest cost to the taxpayer and the greatest efficacy. Fortunately, considerable outcomes research has been conducted in the years since drug courts were created. Although generalizing findings to VCs is uncertain, the drug court research serves as a guide. In that regard, Marlowe (10) has noted a pervasive perception among drug court staff that sanctions and rewards strongly motivate positive behavioral change. Two studies demonstrated that gradually escalating sanctions for infractions, including brief incarcerations, significantly improve outcomes among drug offenders (11,12). Individuals employed at the time of their enrollment in drug court were more likely to successfully complete the program (13).
On the basis of this prior research, we developed a phone survey based upon Russell’s (4) work on VC best practices and Festinger and colleagues’ (14) work regarding measurement methodology on sanctions and rewards. It was assembled with expert input from the VA’s VJO program, the Houston Veterans Treatment Court, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Our phone survey provided data on a range of VC program components, including sanctions and rewards. During the construction of the VC survey, informants knowledgeable about the courts reported that many VCs placed special emphasis on written and signed behavioral contracts that establish specific expectations of veteran participants and time frames for meeting them. Thus we hypothesized that VCs using behavioral contracts would have lower incarceration rates during veterans’ VC participation. Through this examination of program factors, it is our hope that this research will contribute toward increasing the understanding and efficacy of VC models.
Methods
Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by both the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Baylor College of Medicine and the VA Research and Development Committee, and all processes used were approved IRB procedures.
Measures
HOMES database.
The VA’s Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) manages the VA Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System (HOMES) database, which is an integrated, primary data collection system for the VA’s specialized homeless programs. This database documents veteran participation in specialized homeless services, including baseline assessments, program entries, progress in services, and outcomes of program participation. Services to VC participants are recorded in HOMES as part of VA's homelessness prevention strategy. Any veteran who enters a VC program completes both a HOMES and VJO intake form; thus not all veterans included in the HOMES database receive housing assistance. During the two-year period from October 2011 to September 2013, a total of 4,495 veterans receiving services in VCs from VA's VJO specialists had exited their respective programs. This cohort represented 106 VA facilities affiliated with 286 VC programs from 53 states and territories. When veterans become justice involved, they complete standardized patient questionnaires administered by specialists throughout the process.
NEPEC provided access to deidentified HOMES data for the purpose of statistical analysis and research. Incarceration data were available only for veterans during the time of their enrollment in a VC program and prior to their exit. Therefore, our primary outcome variable was the likelihood of incarceration during VC program participation. Incarceration as an outcome variable reflects a veteran’s failure to complete the program because of incarceration for the original or new charge. This does not include incarceration as a sanction received in the context of ongoing program participation. Length of stay in a VC program included the number of days from the date of entry until the date of exit. Because our analyses blended information from the HOMES data and the VC phone survey (see below), only individuals who had exited the VC program, whether they completed the program successfully or not, and had court survey data available, were included in these analyses.
Phone survey.
A phone survey of the existing U.S. VCs was conducted over five months from 2013 to 2014 by the VJO National Program Office (phone survey). The survey involved a questionnaire administered by telephone by national VJO staff, who posed questions to each court’s VJO specialist. When that individual could not be reached, another suitable individual with access to court information was interviewed. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, and the questionnaire consisted of 107 questions. Question categories included court structural classification; admission eligibility criteria; court sanctions and rewards; program admissions, terminations, and completions; standard procedures regarding treatment; peer mentor component; and perceived barriers to treatment.
Data Matching
The HOMES data consisted of deidentified individual-level data, whereas phone survey data consisted of data grouped by court. The two data sets were matched by using VA facility codes, which was the only information available in both HOMES and phone survey data. Because some VA facilities were linked to more than one VC, phone survey variables were calculated as the percentage of VCs per facility that endorsed each item. That percentage was then applied for all individual veterans at that facility. Of the 4,495 participants who exited the program, only 1,224 had exit forms with VA facility codes that also appeared in the court survey data set. Thus a total of 3,271 veterans could not be associated with a particular court and were excluded from the analysis at random. The difference in recidivism rates between the included and excluded samples was not significant. Therefore, the included sample is representative of the larger cohort regarding rates of recidivism.
Data Analysis
We first present a descriptive analysis, using HOMES data, of the sociodemographic and clinical features of the veterans in VCs. Continuous measures were evaluated by analysis of variance, and categorical measures were evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Next, with the goal of identifying which items were most predictive of a veteran’s incarceration during the VC program, we performed a series of four backward conditional logistic regressions by using the method described by Hosmer and Lemeshow (15).
The first regression focused on the initial HOMES assessment variables to identify which pre-VJO program factors were predictive of incarceration during the VC program. The second regression focused on the HOMES variables assessed during a veteran’s VC program involvement to identify which program factors were predictive of incarceration during the VC program. The third regression focused on the court characteristics obtained from the national VC survey to identify which court factors were predictive of incarceration during the VC program. Our fourth regression combined factors that met Bonferroni criteria identified in the sociodemographic characteristics and the first three regressions into a single model to identify which factors—sociodemographic, pre-VC, during VC, or court related—were predictive of incarceration during the VC program. To account for an increased risk of type 1 error in using four logistic regressions, we applied the Bonferroni correction with a new alpha of p<.013 to guide our interpretations.
Results
Demographic Characteristics
The final sample included 1,224 veterans from 73 VA facilities affiliated with 214 VC programs. Average length of stay in the VC program was 197.1±158.6 days. Of the nonincarcerated veterans, 60% were Caucasian, 28% African American, and 10% Hispanic (Table 1). The mean age of the nonincarcerated veterans was 44.1 years. Information regarding gender was not available. Only the number of prior arrests was significantly associated with subsequent incarceration during the VC program.
| Characteristic | No incarceration (N=1,101) | Incarceration (N=123) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | p | |
| Age (M±SD) | 44.1±13.4 | 41.9±12.5 | .084 | ||
| Race-ethnicity | .975 | ||||
| Caucasian | 661 | 60 | 73 | 59 | |
| African American | 308 | 28 | 41 | 33 | |
| Hispanic | 110 | 10 | 5 | 4 | |
| Other | 33 | 3 | 6 | 5 | |
| Marital status | .930 | ||||
| Married | 253 | 23 | 26 | 21 | |
| Remarried | 0 | — | 0 | — | |
| Widowed | 33 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| Separated | 110 | 10 | 14 | 11 | |
| Divorced | 385 | 35 | 49 | 40 | |
| Never married | 286 | 26 | 31 | 25 | |
| Committed relationship | 33 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| Education (M±SD years) | 13.1±1.8 | 12.8±1.4 | .064 | ||
| Military service (M±SD years) | 5.5±5.2 | 5.2±4.3 | .602 | ||
| Branch of service | .721 | ||||
| Army | 672 | 61 | 77 | 63 | |
| Navy | 154 | 14 | 17 | 14 | |
| Marines | 154 | 14 | 18 | 15 | |
| Air Force | 110 | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
| Coast Guard | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Component of military | .334 | ||||
| Active duty | 991 | 90 | 107 | 87 | |
| National Guard | 77 | 7 | 7 | 6 | |
| Reserves | 44 | 4 | 9 | 7 | |
| Highest rank | .410 | ||||
| Enlisted | 1,079 | 98 | 122 | 99 | |
| Warrant officer | 0 | — | 1 | 1 | |
| Commissioned officer | 22 | 2 | 0 | — | |
| Serveda | |||||
| World War II | 0 | — | 1 | 1 | .060 |
| Korea | 0 | — | 0 | — | .503 |
| Vietnam | 121 | 11 | 9 | 7 | .145 |
| Persian Gulf War I | 121 | 11 | 15 | 12 | .687 |
| Afghanistan (OEF) | 132 | 12 | 11 | 9 | .282 |
| Iraq (OIF) | 330 | 30 | 32 | 26 | .311 |
| Iraq (OND) | 44 | 4 | 2 | 2 | .554 |
| Days worked in past 30 (M±SD) | 4.3±8.8 | 2.5±6.8 | .033* | ||
| Days drank in past 30 (M±SD) | 2.9±6.3 | 2.6±5.8 | .700 | ||
| Days with ≥5 drinks in past 30 (M±SD) | 1.8±5.0 | 2.1±5.5 | .584 | ||
| Days used drugs in past 30 (M±SD) | 1.5±5.3 | 2.6±6.8 | .041* | ||
| Number of prior arrests (M±SD) | 5.8±9.2 | 8.7±11.4 | .001** | ||
a
OEF, Operation Enduring Freedom; OIF, Operation Iraqi Freedom; OND, Operation New Dawn
*
p<.05, but not meeting Bonferroni criteria of p<.013; **p<.013, meets Bonferroni criteria
Associations With Incarceration During VC Participation
Prior to VC entry.
Evaluation of the regression diagnostics, including nonzero variance, homoscedasticity, independence of errors, independence of the outcome, and linearity, indicated that no corrections were needed and that the model had an acceptable goodness of fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow p=.559). The final model predicted an adjusted 15% of the total variance. The following variables were associated with higher rates of incarceration during VC program participation: homelessness lasting for six months to a year, compared with no homelessness; being a student, in the active military, or in VA vocational training, compared with working regular hours, either full-time or part-time; being moderately bothered by substance use cravings within the past month per subjective self-assessment, compared with not being bothered; having a history of substance use treatment, compared with having no such history; and the VJO specialist’s concerns about danger to the veteran from others, compared with no concern about such danger (Table 2).
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | — | — | <.001** |
| Duration of homelessness (reference: not homeless) | |||
| <1 month | ns | ||
| 1–6 months | ns | ||
| >6 months to 1 year | 4.12 | 1.80–9.45 | .001** |
| >1–2 years | ns | ||
| >2 years | ns | ||
| Prior time in jail or prison (reference: none) | |||
| <1 month | ns | ||
| 1 month to 1 year | 5.09 | 1.18–22.00 | .029* |
| >1 year | 5.71 | 1.31–24.92 | .020* |
| Employment pattern past 3 years (reference: regular full- or part-time employment) | |||
| Irregular hours (full- or part-time) | 2.39 | 1.20–4.75 | .013* |
| Otherb | 2.85 | 1.33–6.11 | .007** |
| Retired or receiving disability benefits | ns | ||
| Unemployed | 2.23 | 1.12–4.43 | .022* |
| Bothered by substance use cravings in past month (reference: no) | |||
| Slightly | ns | ||
| Moderately | 2.20 | 1.29–3.76 | .004** |
| Considerably | ns | ||
| Extremely | ns | ||
| Specialist treatment concerns (reference: no indicated concern) | |||
| Substance use | 1.72 | 1.14–2.59 | .010** |
| Danger from othersc | 7.16 | 2.06–24.81 | .002** |
| Needs medical treatment | .65 | .44–.97 | .033* |
a
Values are presented for significant findings only.
b
Vocational training, student, or active military
c
Concern about gang violence or domestic violence
*
p<.05, but not meeting Bonferroni criteria of p<.013; **p<.013, meets Bonferroni criteria
After VC entry.
Of the 1,224 veterans for whom complete data were available, 908 (74%) had exited their VC program successfully by meeting all requirements and graduating from the program. These veterans no longer required VJO services, nor were they justice involved. Evaluation of the regression diagnostics indicated that no corrections were needed and the model had an acceptable goodness of fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow p=.180). The final model (Table 3) predicted an adjusted 47% of the total variance. The following variables were associated with higher rates of incarceration during VC program participation: charges of probation or parole violations, longer stays in the VC program; end of VC participation because of incarceration for a new arrest or case transfer by the legal system, and requiring mental health follow-up but not undergoing treatment. Lower rates of incarceration were found for veterans with stable housing.
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | — | — | <.001** |
| Offense: probation or parole violation | 2.22 | 1.27–3.88 | .005** |
| Time in VC program | 1.00 | 1.00–1.01 | <.001** |
| Reason for VC exit (reference: no longer justice involved) | |||
| Incarcerated for new arrest | 30.70 | 16.74–56.30 | <.001** |
| Case transferred by legal system | 3.32 | 1.66–6.60 | .001** |
| Left by own decision | ns | ||
| Too ill to complete program | ns | ||
| Housing stability (reference: literally homeless) | |||
| Imminent risk of homelessness, unstably housed | ns | ||
| Stably housed | .30 | .13–.69 | .005** |
| Veteran did not know | ns | ||
| Employment at program exit (reference: employed full- or part-time) | |||
| Otherb | .13 | .02–.70 | .017* |
| Actively seeking employment | ns | ||
| Retired or receiving disability benefits | ns | ||
| Veteran did not know | ns | ||
| Unemployed | ns | ||
| Receipt of VA financial benefits (reference: currently receiving benefits) | |||
| Has pending application | .26 | .08–.88 | .031* |
| Planning to apply | ns | ||
| Neither receiving nor planning to apply | ns | ||
| Veteran’s status unknown | ns | ||
| Follow-up for drug problems (reference: no drug problem) | |||
| Problem, no treatment | 2.20 | 1.03–4.69 | .041* |
| Non-VA treatment | 3.26 | 1.20–8.89 | .021* |
| VA treatment | ns | ||
| Both non-VA and VA treatment | ns | ||
| Follow-up for mental health problems (reference: no mental health problem) | |||
| Problem, no treatment | 3.44 | 1.39–8.54 | .008** |
| Non-VA treatment | ns | ||
| VA treatment | 2.38 | 1.06–5.34 | .035* |
| Both non-VA and VA treatment | 4.67 | 1.10–19.82 | .037* |
a
Values are presented for significant findings only.
b
Incentive therapy, compensated work therapy, student
*
p<.05, but not meeting Bonferroni criteria of p<.013; **p<.013, meets Bonferroni criteria
Phone survey.
Evaluation of the regression diagnostics indicated that no corrections were needed and the model had an acceptable goodness of fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow p=.193). The final model (Table 4) predicted an adjusted 10% of the total variance. The following program variables were associated with higher rates of incarceration during VC program participation: use of expedited phase adjustments, phase progression based on measurable goals, and acceptance of cases from outside jurisdictions. Lower rates of incarceration were found for programs that regularly referred veterans to substance abuse treatment.
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | — | — | ns |
| Refers veterans to substance abuse treatment (reference: no such referrals) | .00 | .00–.00 | <.001** |
| Uses behavioral contracts (reference: no use) | .54 | .31–.95 | .034* |
| Program uses written reports (reference: no use) | 1.93 | 1.09–3.42 | .023* |
| Uses expedited phase adjustments (reference: no use) | 3.12 | 1.60–6.11 | .001** |
| Uses measurable goals in phase progression (reference: no use) | 125.66 | 6.65–2,373.00 | .001** |
| Barrier: distance of veteran’s residence from program | 1.19 | 1.01–1.39 | .035* |
| Barrier: timeliness of VA services | 1.20 | 1.02–1.41 | .032* |
| Accepts veterans with felony charges (reference: does not accept) | 2.46 | 1.11–5.45 | .026* |
| Accepts veterans from outside jurisdiction (reference: does not accept) | 2.21 | 1.34–3.64 | .002** |
*
p<.05, but not meeting Bonferroni criteria of p<.013; **p<.013, meets Bonferroni criteria
Combined Analysis of Associations With Incarceration
After evaluation of the regression diagnostics including nonzero variance, homoscedasticity, independence of errors, independence of the outcome, and linearity, the final stepwise model was examined (Table 5). Although number of prior arrests was associated with incarceration in our initial linear regression (Table 1), it was no longer statistically significant in the final analysis. The following variables were associated with higher rates of incarceration during VC program participation: charges of probation or parole violations, compared with no such charges; end of VC participation because of incarceration for a new arrest or case transfer by the legal system, compared with no subsequent legal involvement at the time of program termination; and requiring mental health follow-up but not undergoing treatment, compared with not needing any follow-up. Lower rates of incarceration were associated with having stable housing, compared with being homeless, and with program referrals to substance abuse treatment.
| Variableb | OR | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | — | — | .016* |
| Sociodemographicc | |||
| Assessment | |||
| Specialist concerned that veteran is in danger from others (reference: no such concern)d | 6.53 | 1.32–32.34 | .022* |
| Program participation | |||
| Offense: probation or parole violation | 2.54 | 1.45–4.46 | .001** |
| Time in VC Program | 1.00 | 1.00–1.00 | .001** |
| Reason for exit from VC program (reference: no longer justice involved) | |||
| Incarcerated for new arrest | 35.13 | 19.63–62.89 | <.001** |
| Case transferred by legal system | 3.14 | 1.57–6.31 | .001** |
| Left by own decision | ns | ||
| Too ill to complete program | ns | ||
| Housing stability (reference: literally homeless) | |||
| Imminent risk of homelessness, unstably housed | ns | ||
| Stably housed | .23 | .11–.51 | <.001** |
| Veteran did not know | ns | ||
| Follow-up for mental health problems (reference: no mental health problem) | |||
| Problem, no treatment | 3.70 | 1.59–8.59 | .002** |
| Non-VA treatment | ns | ||
| VA treatment | ns | ||
| Both non-VA and VA treatment | 4.34 | 1.28–14.77 | .019* |
| Court survey | |||
| Refers to substance abuse treatment (reference: no referrals to substance abuse treatment) | .00 | .00–.01 | <.001** |
a
Values are presented for significant findings only.
b
c
No sociodemographic factors were retained in final model.
d
Concern about gang violence or domestic violence
*
p<.05, but not meeting Bonferroni criteria of p<.013; **p<.013, meets Bonferroni criteria
Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with incarceration among VC participants. Overall, three-quarters of veterans participating in these courts exited successfully. Our core findings were that stably housed veterans were at lower risk of incarceration, as were veterans referred for substance abuse treatment. Conversely, veterans who required mental health follow-up but did not undergo treatment had a higher risk of incarceration.
This study represented a thorough review of an extensive set of recidivism data. It provides expanded empirical information about VC programs and their structure that can serve as guidance for VCs, whereas little guidance is currently available. Results also indicate future areas for exploration in this burgeoning field of VC research.
Regarding our hypotheses, the use of behavioral contracts as a sanction was associated with lower rates of incarceration during VC participation. However, the level of association was no longer significant after the Bonferroni adjustment was applied. Prior research has shown that 55% of VC programs utilize behavioral contracts (16).
An unsurprising finding was that the stably housed were at lower risk of incarceration than homeless veterans during VC participation. This finding was demonstrated in both pre-VC entry and post-VC entry data, lending further support to national initiatives to provide stable housing for veterans.
In addition, the risk of incarceration was lower in VCs that referred veterans to substance abuse treatment. Prior research has shown that 99% of VC programs utilize this approach (16).
Of the variables associated with increased incarceration risk, one of the most impactful was requiring mental health follow-up but not undergoing treatment. This finding may suggest a need for increased efforts to coerce or entice veterans by more assertive means into needed mental health follow-up. However, information regarding treatment needed, available resources, and potential barriers to care remains unknown. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution, because access to mental health treatment depends on a variety of factors.
The method of enforcing treatment participation and the specific treatments available in VCs were unknown. Future investigations should include a more detailed analysis of the individual court processes, treatment types and their availability to participants, and potential barriers and facilitators of treatment engagement. These court-related factors likely have implications for program outcomes.
In addition, the findings of lower incarceration rates for VCs that referred veterans to substance abuse treatment warrants further investigation. Specifically, 99% of the courts reported referring veterans to substance abuse treatment 100% of the time, and 1% reported referring to treatment 75% of the time. We view these high referral rates as a limitation, because it is difficult to accurately interpret the meaning of this finding. In the few courts that reported not referring veterans to substance abuse treatment, potential causes include a lack of education on the part of the court as to the value of a referral to substance abuse treatment, a lack of service availability, or documentation errors. In addition, the high level of referrals to substance abuse treatment suggests that further investigation is needed to determine how often a referral results in treatment and what those treatments are.
Limitations of our study also included the utilization of self-reports of representatives of VCs or VJO programs for the phone survey measure. VJO specialists are responsible for tracking admissions, exits, and terminations of veterans receiving VA services during VC participation, and because they are treatment team members, they generally have access to such information about a court’s defendants who are not receiving care within the VA system. Because they are not court employees, specialists may be more objective in their reports of court policy and procedure. However, the phone survey’s reliance on noncourt staff to describe court policy and procedures may also be seen as a limitation.
The lack of follow-up data post-VC involvement is another limitation and highlights the need for future investigation that would include databases of the criminal justice system. Criminal justice information would allow more specificity about reincarceration outcomes that could further inform the outcomes for these programs. Such information may offer further insight into veteran and court characteristics that affect the likelihood of recidivism after exit from a VC program.
This study used surveys completed by VC-affiliated VA staff regarding the participants with whom they worked. However, some VC participants may not be eligible for VA services or may opt to receive care outside of the VA, and the lack of data from these participants was a limitation of this study. Given the rapid proliferation of VCs, future studies will likely inventory larger numbers of courts and thereby benefit from enhanced statistical power.
Despite its limitations, this study offers an extensive review of national VC recidivism data. Furthermore, the data can be used in the development and improvement of this critical component of rehabilitation of veterans involved in the criminal justice system.
References
1.
Clark S, McGuire J, Blue-Howells J: Development of veterans treatment courts: local and legislative initiatives. Drug Court Review 3:171–208, 2011
2.
Smee DE, McGuire J, Garrick T, et al: Critical concerns in Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran-forensic interface: veterans treatment court as diversion in rural communities. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 41:256–262, 2013
3.
Clark S, McGuire J, Blue-Howells J: What can family courts learn from veterans treatment courts? Family Court Review 52:417–424, 2014
4.
Russell RT: Veteran treatment court: a proactive approach. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement 35:357–372, 2009
5.
McGuire J, Clark S, Blue-Howells J, et al: An Inventory of VA Involvement in Veterans Courts, Dockets and Tracks. Washington, DC, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Justice Programs, Feb 7, 2013
6.
Holbrook JG, Anderson S: Veterans courts: early outcomes and key indicators for success. Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper 25:1–52, 2011
7.
Johnson RS, Stolar AG, Wu E, et al: An analysis of successful outcomes and associated contributing factors in veterans’ court. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 79:166–173, 2015
8.
Johnson RS, Graham DP, Sikes K, et al: An analysis of sanctions and respective psychiatric diagnoses in veterans’ court. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 43:171–176, 2015
9.
Marlowe DB, Kirby KC: Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review 2:1–31, 1999
10.
Marlowe DB: Research Update on Adult Drug Courts. Alexandria, Va, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2010
11.
Harrell A, Cavanagh S, Roman J: Final Report: Findings From the Evaluation of the DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC, Urban Institute, 1999
12.
Hawken A, Kleiman M: Managing Drug-Involved Probationers With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice, 2009
13.
Roll JM, Prendergast M, Richardson K, et al: Identifying predictors of treatment outcome in a drug court program. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 31:641–656, 2005
14.
Festinger DS, Rubenstein DF, Marlowe DB, et al: Relapse: contributing factors, causative models, and empirical considerations; in Relapse and Recovery in Addictions. Edited by Tims FM, Leukefeld CG, Platt JJ. New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, 2001
15.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley, 2000
16.
Johnson RS, Stolar AG, McGuire JF, et al: US Veterans’ Court programs: an inventory and analysis of national survey data. Community Mental Health Journal 52:180–186, 2016
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Love of Winter, by George Wesley Bellows, 1914. Oil on canvas. Friends of American Art Collection (1914.1018), the Art Institute of Chicago. Photography ©The Art Institute of Chicago, www.artic.edu.
History
Received: 7 July 2015
Revision received: 24 November 2015
Revision received: 19 March 2016
Revision received: 10 May 2016
Accepted: 6 July 2016
Published online: 17 October 2016
Published in print: February 01, 2017
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).