From Confinement to Community
Supporting Successful Veteran Reentry and Employment
Executive Summary
To close out the third phase of its work, the Veterans Justice Commission has made five findings and five corresponding recommendations to strengthen resources for veterans during incarceration, reentry, and community supervision. Each recommendation is accompanied by a summary of findings as well as a list of detailed actions to guide implementation. The Commission urges Congress, the executive branch, states, business leaders, and communities to embrace these recommendations to help veterans thrive by moving past their criminal justice involvement, rebuilding their lives, and resuming their service to families, communities, and the country.
Findings and Recommendations
1. Prioritize the Recruiting and Hiring of Justice-Involved Veterans
Finding: While the cause of second chance employment is attracting growing support in the business sector, there is no large-scale collaboration among industry and government leaders focused on hiring people with criminal convictions who served in our nation’s military.
Recommendation: The American business community, as well as government entities at all levels, should implement policies that directly promote the hiring of second chance veterans. Small businesses and large corporations, along with non-governmental organizations, should collaborate with correctional facilities, technology platforms, and community supervision agencies to support this initiative.
2. Identify and Provide VA Healthcare to Incarcerated Veterans
Finding: Identifying veterans in all phases of the justice system—highlighted in the Commission’s first report—remains essential to understanding the nature and extent of veterans’ justice involvement and driving development of tailored interventions for veterans in prison and on community supervision. An administrative rule formalized in 1999 prohibited incarcerated veterans from receiving care from the Veterans Administration, eliminating a longstanding benefit. As a result, incarcerated veterans are dependent on institutional care that may not fully address their unique service-related needs, particularly post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury.
Recommendation: Congress should require the use of the VA’s veteran identification databases by all entities in the criminal justice system that receive federal funds. Further, Congress should approve and fund VA-provided medical and mental health care for all incarcerated veterans during their confinement.
3. Eliminate Administrative Barriers to Housing Eligibility and Prevent Benefit Arrearages
Finding: Conflicting legal definitions of “homeless” and their application to veterans returning home after incarceration create barriers that can substantially complicate veterans’ efforts to secure housing during reentry. Some reentering veterans also struggle with accumulated debt caused by the VA’s erroneous payment of benefits during their confinement.
Recommendation: The Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies should remove administrative barriers that restrict housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated veterans. Additionally, Congress should pass legislation to prevent benefit arrearages for veterans who notify the VA or Social Security Administration of any felony incarceration lasting, or expected to last, more than 60 days.
4. Evaluate and Develop Best Practices for Veterans Housing Units
Finding: Veteran-specific housing units in prisons and jails have become increasingly popular, gaining support with correctional leaders for their perceived positive impact. Rigorous study of the units is needed to fully understand their effectiveness.
Recommendation: Congress should fund and direct the Department of Justice, through the proposed National Center for Veterans Justice, to coordinate research on veterans housing units and develop best practices for their use.
5. Create “Second Look” Review Processes That Recognize Military Service
Finding: “Second look” policies have been adopted in 12 states and the District of Columbia, but incarcerated veterans have few opportunities to request resentencing based on facts related to their military service.
Recommendation: Congress and the states should enact second look legislation that creates mitigation considerations for military service in resentencing, parole, and clemency processes.
Introduction
American veterans who land in the criminal justice system have a unique set of experiences and needs, and they face challenges that often differ from those of other people behind bars. For incarcerated veterans struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or other forms of trauma, many elements of life in prison can resemble deployment to a combat zone; researchers say that incarcerated combat veterans, in particular, often adopt survival mode characteristics of those engaged in combat operations.1 Studies have documented high rates of mental health and substance use disorders among incarcerated veterans.2 An analysis of corrections data from Washington state found that veterans who self-reported a traumatic brain injury (TBI) had increased use of in-prison medical services, higher rates of violent in-prison misconduct, and an increased likelihood of experiencing solitary confinement.3
Other troubles surface during reentry, when veterans, like most formerly incarcerated people, face multiple barriers to success as they seek to rebuild their lives. Securing stable housing and a job are two key challenges. In a national sample of veterans connected to a VA outreach program, 30% had experienced homelessness within the past three years, a rate five times that of men in the general population.4 While national rates of employment for previously incarcerated veterans are not tracked, factors such as substance use and longer incarceration episodes are correlated with a decreased likelihood of securing a job interview among veterans.5 Veterans and other formerly incarcerated people also are at high risk of death from substance use disorders, homicide, suicide, and other factors during reentry. Among veterans who connected with a post-release VA outreach program, 57% were diagnosed with a mental health disorder, and nearly half (47%) were diagnosed with a substance use disorder. About one third (35%) were diagnosed with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders.6
“Studies have documented high rates of mental health and substance use disorders among incarcerated veterans.”
Among veterans who connected with a post-release VA outreach program:
were diagnosed with a mental health disorder
were diagnosed with a substance use disorder
were diagnosed with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders
Beyond such data, critical gaps remain in what is known about the population of veterans who are in prison or are on post-prison supervision in the community. Most states do not track or publish current data on the number of veterans who are incarcerated or reentering society, or on their unique array of challenges. The absence of reliable, comprehensive information complicates efforts to understand and address veterans’ risks and needs and hinders the development of policies and programs to provide them with tailored interventions and other support.
“Multiple correctional leaders, however, say the specialized housing provides valuable benefits for veterans and the incarcerated population overall.”
Some Promising Developments
In its assessment, the Commission found pockets of encouraging progress. One is the establishment of veteran-specific housing units in correctional settings. These units aim to improve veterans’ outcomes by encouraging peer support related to shared military experience. While their use has expanded rapidly in the past several years, they remain relatively rare and have not been evaluated for effectiveness. Multiple correctional leaders, however, say the specialized housing provides valuable benefits for veterans and the incarcerated population overall.7 A handful of other correctional programs target the unique needs of veterans, including those that partner with the VA to help incarcerated veterans apply for benefits prior to release; focus on incarcerated women veterans; provide educational opportunities; and offer individual and group therapy for mental health and substance use disorders. Still other programs engage incarcerated veterans through peer support networks. Unfortunately, very few of these efforts have been rigorously assessed.
Another promising advancement can be seen in California, which passed legislation allowing incarcerated veterans to petition for readjudication of their cases through a process that permits consideration of their military service. While this is a fairly recent development, the approach could be a model for other states, providing a fresh chance for veterans whose service and related trauma may not have been sufficiently examined during their initial sentencing. Building on these and other positive initiatives, the Commission’s recommendations address the challenges facing justice-involved veterans to ensure they are better equipped to lead productive lives in the country they fought to protect.
Glossary of Terms
Department of Defense (DoD): An agency of the federal government that provides military forces needed to deter war and ensure the national security of the United States.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): An agency of the federal government that provides federal housing and oversees urban development laws.
Department of Justice (DOJ): An agency of the federal government that enforces federal law and the administration of justice in the United States.
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL): An agency of the federal government that oversees federal laws governing occupational safety and health, wage and hour standards, unemployment benefits, and reemployment services.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): An agency of the federal government that provides health, education, disability, financial, and other benefits earned by veterans of the United States Armed Forces.
Military Sexual Trauma (MST): Sexual assault or sexual harassment experienced during military service.
Other than Honorable (OTH): A type of administrative military discharge that results in denial of veterans’ benefits.
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A mental disorder caused by a traumatic event or multiple events, resulting in the symptoms of intrusive thoughts, avoidance, altered cognition and mood, and altered arousal and reactivity.
Second Chance Veterans: Veterans with a criminal record who are seeking employment and career advancement.
Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES): A VA web application used by law enforcement and other organizations outside of the VA that allows users to access reliable, detailed information about veteran benefit eligibility.
Substance Use Disorder (SUD): Continued use of substances, such as drugs, alcohol, or medication, causing a loss of control and physical dependence and impairing the ability to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home.
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): A disruption in the normal functioning of the brain that can be caused by a blow, bump, or jolt to the head, a forceful impact of the head against an object, or the penetration of an object into the skull and brain tissue.
Veterans’ Health Administration: A division of the VA that provides benefits, health care, and cemetery services to military veterans.
Veterans Reentry Search Service (VRSS): An online VA tool that allows participating criminal justice and correctional entities to identify individuals in the system who have served in the U.S. military.
Recommendation One
Prioritize the Recruiting and Hiring of Justice-Involved Veterans
Findings
A Growing Movement
The hiring of people with criminal records, a practice often referred to as “second chance” or “fair chance” employment, has become increasingly popular within the American business community in recent years. Organizations such as the Second Chance Business Coalition have championed the benefits of such hiring and have encouraged employers to rethink hiring requirements that may be keeping talented employees off their radar.
Under the fair chance hiring approach, employers are encouraged to lower hiring barriers, in part by removing criminal background questions from job applications. Additional fair chance hiring policies include targeted recruiting, skills-based interviews, evaluating the relevance of a conviction to the specific job role, and providing supportive onboarding. More than 50 corporations, including The Home Depot, JPMorgan Chase, Target, Walmart, and United Airlines, have adopted second chance hiring practices.8 LinkedIn is another leader in this area. In 2020, the company created a fair chance filter for its search engine, which identifies employers who are open to hiring people with criminal backgrounds.
“Under the fair chance hiring approach, employers are encouraged to lower hiring barriers, in part by removing criminal background questions from job applications.”
Many companies have also increased efforts to hire veterans. The Veterans Jobs Mission brings together leaders in the business community to promote the hiring of veterans and their spouses. The group, originally called the “100,000 Jobs Mission,” was started in 2011 with 11 companies. By 2024, the effort included more than 315 companies, which have hired more than 900,000 veterans and military spouses in all.9 Although veterans generally experience lower unemployment rates than non-veterans, joblessness among former service members spiked between 2009 and 2014, with unemployment for Gulf War veterans peaking at 12.1% (compared to 9% for non-veterans) in 2011.10 In response, the federal government and private sector began coordinated initiatives. The Obama White House launched the “Joining Forces” initiative, which reportedly placed more than 1.2 million veterans and their family members in corporate jobs by the end of the Obama presidency.11 The Bush Institute partnered with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's Hiring Our Heroes program to put forth seven recommendations to support veterans in finding fulfilling employment.12 They included greater data collection and the creation and expansion of Department of Defense programs.13 Hiring Our Heroes has continued to fuel veteran employment efforts, resulting in 505,000 confirmed veteran hires as of 2021.14 More recently, the Veterans Jobs Mission has committed to hiring two million veterans and 200,000 military spouses through its corporate coalition.
Focusing on Justice-Involved Veterans
While these examples show the substantial effort made to boost employment for justice-involved individuals and veterans, they reveal a gap at their intersection: the absence of a large-scale initiative to hire veterans with a criminal background. Hire Heroes USA is one group that has stepped in to address this gap. Tailoring its outreach to justice-involved veterans, the organization provides education on legal rights, prepares veterans for interview questions related to their criminal records, and connects job seekers with fair chance employers. The organization also offers mentorship through its Battle Buddies Program. As of May 2024, Hire Heroes USA had supported 688 justice-involved veterans, with nearly half (48%) securing employment.15 This laudable work is making a difference in many veterans’ lives, but a broader effort is needed to match the scope of the problem. Research has consistently shown that employment, especially stable and meaningful employment, is crucial to successful reentry.16 With coordination spanning government agencies, community organizations, and the business community, the nation can dramatically expand second chance hiring to more justice-involved veterans, reduce future criminal behavior, and improve health safety, and justice for veterans, their families, and communities. To help accelerate this change, the Commission developed the following recommendation.
Recommendation
The American business community, as well as governmental entities at all levels, should implement policies and practices that directly promote the recruitment and hiring of second chance veterans. Small businesses and large corporations, along with non-governmental organizations, should collaborate with correctional facilities, technology platforms, and community supervision agencies to support this initiative.
Implementation Steps
1
Federal and state governments should hire more second chance veterans.
a. Existing state and federal preferences for hiring veterans should be amended to directly address second chance veterans.
b. The U.S. Department of Labor and the Veterans Administration should promote second chance veteran hiring to their membership, constituents, and the public.
2
The American business community should incorporate the following best practices into their existing hiring policies.
a. Remove Barriers: A business will remove questions about criminal records from initial job applications and delay inquiries until later stages of the hiring process, such as after a conditional job offer.
b. Individualized Assessments: Each candidate with a criminal background will be evaluated individually, with consideration given to the nature and severity of the offense, time elapsed since the offense, and its relevance to the job role. Candidates will have the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding their criminal record.
c. Thorough Background Checks: Where applicable, a business will conduct criminal and non-criminal background checks that comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requirements. Any third-party background check service used by a business will also comply with the FCRA. For positions dealing with vulnerable populations, businesses may conduct fingerprint-based FBI background checks in addition to standard checks. Businesses will not ask for a copy of a service member’s military record (e.g., DD214) until after a conditional offer is made, and only if necessary. A negative discharge characterization will not be an automatic bar to employment. Businesses will also verify military service and discharge status through official channels. If something is unclear in a veteran’s military record, a business will review it with a veteran or someone familiar with military records so that businesses can accurately understand any findings.
d. Hiring Channels: Businesses will actively promote open positions through channels reaching justice-involved veterans and will partner with organizations that provide job readiness training and support for this talent pool. Where job requirements allow, a business will actively work to create a talent pipeline or facilitate initiatives focused on justice-involved veterans.
3
The Second Chance Business Coalition, the Veterans Jobs Mission, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resources Management, and other leading business organizations should raise awareness of the benefits of second chance veteran hiring among their members, constituents, and the public.
4
American businesses with second chance veterans hiring policies should promote their policies in partnership with veteran service and criminal justice organizations.
5
American businesses with second chance veterans hiring policies should consider investing in correctional agencies' vocational training and work-force development programs and should collaborate on job placement efforts for justice-involved veterans, including those on parole or probation either prior to or following a period of incarceration.
6
Employers should take advantage of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
Recommendation Two
Identify Veterans and Provide VA Healthcare to Incarcerated Veterans
Findings
A Lack of Identification
In its first report, Honoring Service, Advancing Safety, the Commission noted that reliable estimates of the number of veterans in prisons and jails and on community supervision are rare.17 Official incarceration figures are outdated and only available at the national level. Specifically, the most recent government estimate showed that 181,000 veterans were in U.S. prisons and jails, but this figure is from 2016—and uses 2011 data. There are no exact figures for each state prison and local jail. In addition, while there were approximately 3.7 million adults under some form of community supervision in the U.S. as of 2022, no data exist to show how many of them were veterans.18 One obstacle to reliable numbers is that agencies in many states tend to rely on people to self-report their veteran status. As highlighted in previous Commission reports, this is a faulty measure because many former service members hesitate to disclose their status. Some worry about losing benefits, while others report feeling a sense of shame or fear being viewed as a threat.19 Research in California suggests that nearly two out of three incarcerated veterans do not self-identify when asked.20 While prisons are able to run their populations against existing data systems—the Veterans Reentry Search Service (VRSS) to determine who has served in the military, few state prisons use them.21
To obtain a more accurate picture of the concentration of veterans in state prisons and better understand how corrections agencies identify veterans as part of their classification process, the Commission partnered with researchers at New York University (NYU). Based on state reporting, the researchers estimated that there were 52,000 veterans in state prisons in 2023, representing about 5% of the nation’s total state prison population.22 This number is below the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimate released seven years earlier, which found 98,000 veterans in state prisons, representing about 8% of that year’s total state prison population.23
“Research in California suggests that nearly two out of three incarcerated veterans failed to self-identify as a veteran when asked.”
One reason for the gap may be the decline in the prison population overall. Expanding efforts to divert some veterans from incarceration via treatment courts could have reduced numbers as well. But the NYU researchers also believe their 2023 estimate is an undercount, in part because many states rely on self-reporting by veterans, an approach known to be problematic because many veterans are reluctant to self-identify out of shame or fear of potential loss of benefits. In contrast, the BJS uses more rigorous, resource-intensive, nationally representative survey methods for its periodic counts.24 Whatever the explanation, this difference in population numbers underscores the need for reliable identification of incarcerated veterans and the consistent use of the VA’s identification systems. The absence of a concerted, comprehensive, and federally managed effort by correctional facilities to identify veterans means that many do not receive targeted interventions that could better address service-related conditions that can contribute to their criminal behavior. Early identification also would help with the creation of reentry plans that include links to veteran resources in the community, including housing assistance, the restoration of VA benefits, and other support.
Healthcare During Incarceration
Identifying veterans in correctional custody is particularly important to enable institutions to tailor healthcare for those who need specialized treatment for PTSD, TBIs, and other service-related trauma. Currently, veterans incarcerated in jails and prisons do not have access to VA-specific healthcare, which means they rely on medical care provided by their institutions, like the rest of the population behind bars. The absence of VA care can be traced back to 1999. That year brought the formalization of a federal regulation proposed by the VA that prohibited the VA from providing healthcare to veterans under the care of another government agency. This regulation terminated a significant benefit and reversed nearly 70 years of VA practice.25 The change also left non-VA providers responsible for the care of incarcerated veterans. This has raised concerns because it means veterans receive care from medical staff who may lack the specialized training that VA providers receive. For example, research specifically focused on this issue, conducted in New York, shows that non-VA providers are often poorly trained in evidence-based care for veterans' issues, such as using Cognitive Processing Therapy to treat PTSD.26 PTSD can elevate the risk that veterans will engage in criminal behavior, making specialized VA-provided care particularly important for those in prison and jail.27
“Restoring VA healthcare access for incarcerated veterans could improve their rehabilitation and ensure a smoother transition to post-incarceration life.”
Before the 1999 rule change, the VA could provide healthcare to incarcerated veterans, either within correctional facilities or by coordinating with correctional staff to bring patients to VA facilities. Restoring VA healthcare access for incarcerated veterans could improve their rehabilitation and ensure a smoother transition to post-incarceration life. Eligible veterans could also seamlessly continue their healthcare after release without the need to reestablish their VA connections.
The Commission was not able to find or calculate what the VA spent on care for incarcerated veterans before the 1999 regulation change. In order to benchmark what resumption of VA funding might cost, the Commission partnered again with researchers at New York University to generate an estimate of current expenditures on healthcare services for veterans in state prisons. The researchers gathered data on the average healthcare cost for imprisoned people in each of the 50 states and multiplied that figure by the estimated number of veterans in each state. They estimated that the total national expenditure on healthcare for veterans in state prisons in 2023 was $472 million.28 Prison health costs at the state level varied widely. The average per person cost was $9,700. California’s costs were the highest, at $28,000 per incarcerated individual, while Louisiana spent the least, $1,200.29 These figures reflect health services provided by state prisons but not other entities that might also supply or pay for care. How much a state prison can spend on healthcare varies widely due to budget, availability of care, differences in population health needs, and various regional factors. While these costs reflect current state spending levels, they would not necessarily mirror what the VA would need to spend if it resumed providing services to incarcerated veterans across the nation. Total VA costs could be less if the department covered only certain services, such as behavioral health. On the other hand, since prison health services are widely regarded as insufficient,30 the VA might expand services and expenditures. Further exploration of the impact on the VA’s budget is warranted. But in the Commission’s view, the 1999 rule change should be reversed on the grounds that veterans have served the nation and in return deserve the best health services the nation can deliver.
Beyond reverting back to a 70-year norm, it is important to consider the timing of the 1999 rule change. In particular, it occurred just before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of the attacks, millions of American troops deployed, many of whom went on to serve multiple combat tours. Today’s veterans experienced historically high rates of deployment and combat exposure, raising their risk of PTSD and TBI, which are linked to criminal justice involvement.31 Put simply, VA coverage was taken away from incarcerated veterans at a time when veterans became more likely to experience risk factors associated with criminal behavior, making it more difficult for them to receive proper care for those factors. The Commission believes the 1999 rule change should be reversed and that the VA should resume providing care to incarcerated veterans. This is the best way to honor veterans’ sacrifices to the nation and enhance their health and public safety upon release.
“Today’s veterans face historically high rates of deployment and combat exposure, raising the risk of PTSD and TBI, both of which are linked to criminal justice involvement.”
Recommendation
Congress should require the use of the VA’s veteran identification databases by all entities in the criminal justice system that receive federal funds. Congress should approve and fund VA-provided medical and mental health care for all incarcerated veterans during their confinement.
Implementation Steps
1
Congress should mandate the adoption, use, and data reporting of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) identification databases—the Veterans Reentry Search Service (VRSS) and the Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES)—by all federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice agencies that receive federal funds.
a. The administrators of VRSS and SQUARES and state correctional leaders should collaborate to ensure that data systems allow them to effectively share information.
b. The VA should also keep its databases up to date to ensure accuracy.
2
Congress and the VA should make medical and mental healthcare available to all incarcerated veterans through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). State correctional facilities should coordinate with the VHA to arrange for such care, to include hosting VA specialists, redirecting transportation from correctional to health facilities, and providing telehealth options.
a. Congress should repeal the law that eliminated this right and pass new legislation requiring VA provided medical and mental health care for incarcerated veterans.
b. Congress should repeal the necessary sections of the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-262.32
c. The VA should amend the rule 38 CFR § 17.38(c)(5) to confirm this crucial benefit is once again in effect.
d. Funding should also be provided to the VHA to ensure necessary staffing requirements are met so that there is no degradation of care to non-incarcerated veterans.
Recommendation Three
Eliminate Administrative Barriers to Housing Eligibility and Prevent Benefit Arrearages
Findings
Homeless Definitions and Housing Eligibility
Housing is often cited as an especially daunting hurdle for formerly incarcerated veterans. Many struggle with homelessness,33 and in the 1980s, data revealed that veterans were overrepresented in the nation’s homeless population.34 Homeless veterans and non-veterans share many similar experiences that lead them to become homeless.35 For veterans, the most consistent risk factors are substance use disorder and mental illness, in addition to low income.36 Many of these factors lead veterans to criminality as well.
Navigating government-funded housing programs presents a formidable challenge for some justice-involved veterans beginning a reentry journey. Many apply for programs offered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Labor, and the VA, which offer assistance for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Unfortunately, conflicting definitions of homelessness among these agencies create confusion for many veterans as they seek to comply with program requirements. The Department of Labor’s Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) and the HUD-VA Supportive Housing program (HUD-VASH) both use the HEARTH Act definition of homeless, which includes people “exiting an institution where they temporarily resided.”37 This ambiguous definition fails to clarify when a veteran is considered to be “exiting” an institution and what qualifies as “temporarily resided.” The act also explicitly excludes people who are imprisoned or detained, meaning that incarcerated veterans cannot apply for housing programs before release. This puts them at risk of leaving jail or prison with nowhere to live and can unnecessarily prolong veterans’ time behind bars. The VA’s Supportive Services for Veteran Families program includes a “RapidReHousing” waiver that can expedite the housing application process, but its eligibility requirement—being “literally homeless”—is narrow.38 Veterans exiting institutions after long-term sentences often do not qualify. The HUD-VA Supportive Housing program uses the same homelessness definition as HVRP, further contributing to confusion and inconsistencies across programs.
“Navigating government-funded housing programs presents a formidable challenge for some justice-involved veterans beginning a reentry journey.”
The Commission finds that conflicting definitions and application of program standards can sow confusion and create unnecessary obstacles to veterans’ reentry. This confusion increases the potential for veterans to become homeless upon leaving jail or prison, which, in turn, can increase the odds of reoffending, put veterans at increased risk for suicide, or, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, expose them to rearrest for simply being homeless.39 The Commission strongly urges federal agencies to consider refining the definition of “homeless” in relevant program materials to ensure that more returning veterans can apply for and obtain housing.
Erroneous Benefit Payments and Associated Debt
A second critical barrier to successful reentry for some formerly incarcerated veterans is accumulated debt related to VA benefit payments that occur during their confinement. In 1980, Congress passed the Veterans’ Disability Compensation, Housing, and Memorial Benefits Amendment, which reduced or eliminated VA compensation for veterans imprisoned for more than 60 days.40 Section 5313 of the amendment says that any veteran who is entitled to VA compensation and is imprisoned for a felony for more than 60 days at a local, state, or federal correctional facility will face a reduction or elimination of compensation on the 61st day of incarceration.41 For incarcerated veterans without a disability, this rule means the termination of benefit checks. For those who are rated at 20% disabled or greater, monthly payment rates are reduced to 10% of the total benefit ($171.23 as of June 2024), and for veterans rated at 10% disabled, the payment is reduced even more ($85.61 as of June 2024).42 The VA identifies veterans for benefit reduction or termination by matching Social Security numbers with databases from the federal Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, and the Social Security Administration.43 This system, however, has significant flaws. In some instances, veterans who should retain their benefits, such as those who are incarcerated for a misdemeanor and are thus not subject to benefit reduction, may be erroneously flagged. In other cases, even those veterans who notify the VA of their incarceration, continue to receive benefits.44 This scenario leads to overpayments—sometimes extending for years—and, once the government becomes aware of its error, subsequent actions to recover dispersed funds.
The Commission finds that the erroneous payment of benefits to incarcerated veterans, sometimes over many years, can leave those exiting jail or prison saddled with substantial debt at a time when they are readjusting to free society and rebuilding their lives. In some cases, the government will garner the full amount of a veteran’s benefit check to recover the debt. Compounding the financial stress, the process of appealing or requesting waivers for these debts is complex and time-sensitive. That challenge, coupled with the onerous task of reinstating VA benefits after release, creates considerable financial instability for many formerly incarcerated veterans as they attempt to reintegrate with families, find housing and employment, and chart a new course forward. The Commission recommends that Congress take action to ensure these erroneous payments do not continue.
“The erroneous payment of benefits to incarcerated veterans, sometimes over many years, can leave those leaving jail or prison saddled with substantial debt at a time when they are readjusting to free society and rebuilding their lives.”
Recommendation
The Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies should remove the administrative barrier that restricts housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated veterans. In addition, Congress should pass legislation to prevent benefit arrearages for veterans who notify the VA or Social Security Administration of any felony incarceration lasting, or expected to last, more than 60 days.
Implementation Steps
1
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should revise the “homeless” definition in 24 CFR 576.2 to state that an individual who is exiting a publicly funded institution or system of care (such as a health care facility, a mental health facility, a foster care or other youth facility, or a correction program or institution) should qualify as homeless, provided that:
a. The individual will be exiting within 30 days of the date of application for homeless assistance;
b. No subsequent residence has been identified; and
c. The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks (e.g., family, friends, faith-based or other social networks) needed to obtain other permanent housing.
2
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) should cease its practice of recouping monies erroneously paid to a veteran after the VA was provided actual written notice of the veteran’s incarceration, whether the source of the notice is the veteran, the correctional facility, or another government entity.
3
Regarding debt waivers, the VA should adopt the following policies, to be included in its training and adjudication manuals:
a. Recoupment of a debt following release from incarceration would very likely constitute “undue hardship” per 38 CFR 1.965, given the innumerable difficulties veterans face upon release; thus, adjudicators should consider this factor when adjudicating waiver requests due to incarceration.
b. Recoupment of debts due to incarceration shall begin no sooner than 24 months following release to help facilitate veterans’ successful reentry. The VA should provide veterans with the date upon which their benefits will be reduced and communicate clear instructions for the filing of a waiver.
c. The VA should create a form specifically for requesting waivers and should include the following within the form:
i) Sections for the veteran to provide information regarding each of the factors considered per 38 CFR 1.965.
ii) Sections to indicate when the veteran had actual knowledge of the debt so that the VA can calculate the waiver deadline per 38 USC 5302(a)(1), which allows for the VA to start the 180-day deadline from the date of actual knowledge of the debt.
iii) Sections to indicate the veteran’s recent incarceration and their date of release, information the adjudicator can use in analyzing whether recoupment would cause “undue hardship” per 38 CFR 1.965.
4
Further, the processes outlined in recommendation No. 2 show that it may be prudent to leverage a technology solution to ensure that the VA becomes aware of veteran incarceration in a timely manner to reduce the likelihood and impact of veterans' arrearages.45
Recommendation Four
Evaluate and Develop Best Practices for Veterans Housing Units
Findings
Veteran-specific housing units have gained popularity across the country in recent years, with both federal and state correctional systems adopting variations. Sometimes called veteran pods, or HUMVs (Housing Units for Military Veterans), these units typically aim to create a supportive environment for veterans, encourage peer mentoring, and facilitate the delivery of tailored programs. The units are often staffed with officers who have special training in veterans’ issues.
The first veteran housing unit was established in 1987 by the New York Department of Corrections, and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has identified about 100 to date.46 These units vary widely in structure and operation, ranging from basic communal living spaces to units requiring extensive program participation. The NIC report Barracks Behind Bars highlighted the diverse array of units and their management across the country.47 Correctional leaders widely praise these units for improving population management, allowing for more effective program delivery, and violence reduction. Maine Corrections Commissioner Randall Liberty is a strong advocate for veterans’ housing units, having introduced the first jail-level unit in Augusta and expanded the model throughout the state. In a meeting with Commission advisers, he explained his support this way: “One data point I'm most proud of is in 2017 we had 80 assaults on staff. Last year [2023], we had seven, just by providing that therapeutic environment where people can be redeemed and give back to the community.”
“Correctional leaders widely praise these units for improving population management, allowing for more effective program delivery, and violence reduction.”
Adding to this anecdotal support is research focused on the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Veterans Moving Forward program. A study of the program’s housing unit for male veterans found that participants had fewer rule violations and were less likely to be rearrested within 12 months of release than a historical group of veterans who did not participate in the program.48 While these findings are suggestive, a non-causal analysis of one housing unit cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of the intervention’s effectiveness. Moreover, such units vary widely in the scope of their entry requirements and their programming strategies, making it difficult to draw general conclusions about their effectiveness. And because of differences between veterans who join the units and veterans who do not, analyses cannot rule out the possibility that people who seek to live in the housing units are already more likely to successfully reenter the community, regardless of the unit’s impact.
“There is significant room for innovation to determine what can make these programs work for veterans’ successful reentry."
Notably, there are no standard practices for veterans housing units. Incarcerated veterans have diverse needs and strengths, many of which are similar to—but perhaps more pronounced than—those of the general prison population. The prison experiences of veterans also are not fundamentally different from those of non-veterans. Consequently, many veterans’ housing units either offer programs similar to those available to the general population or serve as specialty housing without distinct programming. There is significant room for innovation to determine what can make these programs work for veterans’ successful reentry. Along with this innovation, more rigorous evaluations across different regions are needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of how these specialized units affect participants and how removing veterans from general prison housing affects the broader population. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies, specifically, are needed to determine the benefits of such programming.
Cost is also an important factor to consider. In some cases, veterans housing units do not require augmenting expenditures. For example, the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office funded its HUMV unit through its general operating budget and with nominal impact to the budget. The jail was able to repurpose an existing housing unit to suit the veterans’ needs and partnered with local service providers for programmatic support.49 In Maine, Commissioner Liberty shared a similar experience, noting that “it’s about management of the population” and that costs need not be a barrier. Despite those examples, costs and budgets vary by jurisdiction, and an efficient population management solution that is workable for a small agency might not be for a larger one. Finally, in addition to questions of their potential efficacy and cost, veterans housing units may be seen as impractical by correctional managers whose systems contain a relatively small number of incarcerated veterans. In that scenario, officials are forced to balance the benefits of dedicated veterans’ units against the need for general population bedspace. This is particularly true for women’s facilities, where incarcerated female veterans often lack access to veteran-specific programs and housing. The Commission finds that veterans housing units show promising results and enjoy substantial support from correctional leaders who have implemented them in their facilities. However, before the units are adopted on a larger scale, further evaluation is needed to confirm their effectiveness.
Recommendation
Congress should fund and direct the Department of Justice, through the proposed National Center for Veterans Justice, to coordinate research and develop best practices for veterans housing units.
Implementation Steps
1
The National Center for Veterans Justice, the creation of which was recommended in the Commission’s first report,50 should review existing research on veterans housing units. It should coordinate information and data sharing as well as best practices for veterans housing units (including gender responsive care).
a. State and local corrections agencies should consult with Center and affiliated researchers to determine how to establish veterans units for rigorous evaluation.
b. Once this set up is complete, veteran housing unit programs should be evaluated,
c. Center and affiliated researchers should determine what processes and conditions make the units most successful for veterans’ reentry.
i. The National Center for Veterans Justice should coordinate with the National Institute of Corrections on ideal processes and conditions.
Recommendation Five
Create “second look” review processes that recognize military service
In its first report, the Commission recommended that state and federal governments adopt frameworks to divert veterans from the justice system and consider their military history in holding them accountable for their crimes.51 Here, the Commission extends this approach to incarcerated veterans whose military service was not taken into account at the time of their sentencing. “Second look” policies allow judges to review cases after a designated portion of a prison sentence has been served. These policies are slowly proliferating, with 12 states and the District of Columbia enacting laws that provide opportunities for incarcerated people—regardless of their veteran status—to petition for an opportunity to return to their communities.52 At the federal level, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted in 2023 to allow judges to reduce sentences for eligible individuals, an action with the potential to affect as many as 18,000 people in the federal correctional system.53 Also in 2023, the Council on Criminal Justice Task Force on Long Sentences recommended that state legislatures and Congress consider creating selective second look opportunities for those serving 10 or more years, with input from victims and survivors.
“Little has been done, however, to create opportunities for incarcerated veterans to request resentencing based on facts related to their military service. California is an exception.”
Within this push for second looks, little has been done to consider opportunities for incarcerated veterans to request resentencing based on facts related to their military service. California is an exception. In 2022, the legislature passed a penal code amendment that allows veterans suffering from one or more specified service-related conditions to seek resentencing.54 The code now states that to be eligible for resentencing, a person must “have served in the US military and have one or more of the following conditions or trauma related to their military service: sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and/or mental health problems as a result of the defendant’s military service.” If one of those conditions is present, the code further states that the “the court shall consider the circumstance as a factor in mitigation when imposing a sentence.”55 The amendment applies to veterans incarcerated for felonies or those who are on probation, parole, or any form of post-release community supervision. Individuals who are required to register as a sex offender, or those with certain types of felonies (including homicide or any serious or violent felony that is punishable by life imprisonment or death), are not eligible.56
Beyond resentencing, the consideration of military service might also be extended to the parole, pardon, and clemency processes, where it is often overlooked. By not fully and formally considering military service as part of release decisions, crucial context may be missed, potentially denying veterans opportunities for parole, pardon, or clemency. The Commission finds that addressing this gap is essential to ensure that a veteran’s service, and the role such service can play in driving criminal behavior, receives appropriate recognition.
Recommendation
The federal government and the states should enact second look legislation that creates mitigation considerations for military service in resentencing, parole, and clemency processes.
Implementation Steps
1
Congress and the states should enact second look legislation for veterans, requiring that the veteran’s military service record and/or a condition resulting from military service must be considered in mitigation, with shorter prison/jail sentences and/or treatment and accountability in the community as options. These policies should cover the sentencing court, the parole process, and clemency proceedings or policies.
a. State legislatures, Congress, and policymakers should consider creating selective opportunities for people whose military service was not considered during adjudication to receive judicial second looks consistent with the purposes of sentencing.57
b. Participation in veteran housing units should be considered a part of the second look process as it demonstrates a return to military roots and values.
Conclusion
The challenges American veterans face in the criminal justice system require targeted, innovative solutions that address the unique needs and strengths of those who have served in our military. While prisons and jails have made progress in developing veteran-specific housing units and programs, significant gaps in support remain within correctional facilities and for those reentering society after incarceration. The Commission’s recommendations emphasize the importance of prioritizing the hiring of justice-involved veterans, improving veteran identification within the criminal justice system, creating access to VA-provided healthcare for incarcerated veterans, and eliminating barriers to housing upon reentry. Additionally, the standardization and evaluation of specialized veteran housing units can help ensure that veterans receive consistent, targeted support during their incarceration. For veterans seeking resentencing, parole, or clemency, the creation of second look processes that recognize military service and its consequences is a critical step that expands opportunities for redemption and promotes public safety. By implementing these recommendations, federal, state, and local agencies, along with the business community and nonprofit organizations, can better address the needs of justice-involved veterans. These efforts will honor the sacrifices made by our veterans and contribute to safer, healthier, and more supportive communities for all.
Suggested Citation: Council on Criminal Justice. (2024). From Confinement to Community: Supporting Successful Veteran Reentry and Employment. https://counciloncj.foleon.com/veterans-commission/vjc-reports/corrections-reentry