Key Element Five

Training, Data Collection, and Evaluation

Jurisdictions that adopt this framework must have the necessary resources and training to effectively implement these policies and engage in data collection and evaluation to measure their impact.

Key Elements One and Two detail the crucial role judges must play in implementing this policy framework. Research on problem-solving courts suggests that providing specialized training to help judges assume this role is essential.1 A national study of 23 drug courts found that they were more effective in reducing crime and substance use when judges were knowledgeable about substance use disorder treatment.2 Additional analyses generally suggest that drug court outcomes are superior when judges “attend annual training conferences on evidence-based practices.”3

Studies also highlight the value of training other individuals involved in the intervention, such as law enforcement officers and community supervision staff. A systematic review of 69 drug court evaluations involving more than 32,000 people found that courts with trained team members had 55% greater reductions in recidivism, on average, and experienced a 238% average cost savings related to that recidivism reduction compared to courts that did not provide training.4

In addition to using training to ensure that personnel are prepared, jurisdictions must engage in consistent data collection and evaluation to analyze the effectiveness of their policy changes and ensure the proliferation of evidence-based reforms, along with the jettisoning of unsuccessful changes. Again, drawing on analogous practices in drug courts is instructive. One study showed that the internal review of data and statistics to modify the drug court practices led to a 105% greater reduction in recidivism when compared to courts that did not engage in this practice, and a 131% increase in cost savings due to the reduction in recidivism, on average.4 Occasional performance evaluations from independent sources have similarly been found to make drug courts nearly twice as effective in cost savings and crime reduction.4

Overall, the evidence suggests that while training, data collection, and evaluation are likely to require initial investments, they ultimately help control program costs and ensure that these interventions effectively protect public safety and assist participating veterans.

Implementation Steps

1

Jurisdictions should increase training for law enforcement, court personnel (e.g., judges, prosecutors, court staff, and public defenders), and corrections personnel in handling cases involving veterans, including their exposure to violence, trauma, PTSD, MST, and TBI.

This training should include specific instruction on working with female veterans due to the particular challenges they are more likely to face, such as MST.5

2

The federal government should provide funding to create reference guides to help personnel working with veterans in these processes.

3

Courts should track and report the number of veterans who receive, successfully complete, decline, and are denied a VSO and sentencing mitigation.

4

Prosecutors and law enforcement should track and report the number of veterans who receive, successfully complete, decline, and are denied prosecutorial or law enforcement-led veterans diversion and treatment courts.

5

All data collected and reported should be categorized by race, ethnicity, gender, age, military discharge characterization, and offense type.

6

Jurisdictions should develop a plan for tracking outcomes among veterans who receive a VSO, including successful completion of the program, recidivism, housing status, and employment status.