Alternatives to Prosecution and Incarceration for Justice-Involved Veterans: A Model Policy Framework
Key Element One
Eligibility and Incentives
Veterans Treatment Courts are a pioneering intervention and have grown at a rapid rate, from the first VTC in Buffalo, NY, in 2008 to more than 600 today. The number of VTCs is expected to continue to rise, but for several reasons, ranging from cost to the specific segment of the population they are intended to serve (those who are both high-risk and high-need), they cannot be the system’s only front-end response for veterans. Indeed, many veterans encountering the criminal justice system today cannot access a VTC. In December 2021, just 14% of U.S. counties had an operational VTC.1 Examining specific states and counties reveals an even more pronounced lack of access. Indiana operated 28 VTCs as of December 2021, meaning there was one court per 14,000 veterans in the state. By contrast, Iowa had just one VTC for its 188,867 veterans. Six states had no VTCs at all. While there is no official estimate of how many justice-involved veterans are seen in a VTC each year, a recent analysis by the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that no more than 10% to 15% of justice-involved veterans could be served by a VTC.2
Figure 1: Number of Veterans per VTCs by State
Chart note: States in gray did not have any operational VTC as of December 2021.
In addition, a 2022 multisite evaluation of VTCs found significant variation in how these courts function, including differences in eligibility criteria and the use of incentives and sanctions.3 A study of more than 2,300 prosecutors’ offices in 2021 found similar issues, with only 36 offices (less than 2%) operating a veteran-specific diversion program and little uniformity in how the programs functioned.4 Even when veterans are in a location where they can access a VTC, other eligibility requirements often prevent them from doing so. Conditions related to military service, such as PTSD, have been linked to an increased risk of violent behavior,5 yet a national survey of VTCs found that 43% exclude veterans with any violent felony charge.6 Notably, veterans are 22% more likely than non-veterans to be incarcerated for violent crimes, with nearly 70% of veterans in state prisons serving time for a violent offense.7 As a result, the VTC restriction means that many justice-involved veterans end up in prison due in part to conditions from their service, rather than receiving evidence-based treatment for those conditions while under supervision in the community.
Beyond restricting many veterans based on offense type, nearly a quarter of VTCs bar veterans who are ineligible for VA benefits. Often this ineligibility stems from a veteran receiving a “bad paper” discharge, which may be an administrative “other than honorable discharge” (OTH) or a punitive bad-conduct discharge. Veterans with bad paper discharges are overrepresented within the justice-involved population; they make up approximately 6% of the total veteran population,8 but account for 18% of incarcerated veterans.9 In addition, veterans with bad paper discharges are more likely to suffer from issues related to their service. One study of nearly 450,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, for example, found that 45% of veterans discharged for misconduct had a mental health or substance use disorder, compared to 20% of those discharged under routine conditions.10 Tethering VTC and VA eligibility together leads to a considerable portion of justice-involved veterans being incarcerated and excluded from programs that would offer them treatment in place of incarceration. Notably, the veterans who are excluded are often those most in need of treatment.
Finally, research suggests that even veterans who have access and eligibility refrain from participating in a VTC because of a lack of compelling incentives. According to one survey of justice-involved veterans who did not engage with a VTC, 8.6% decided not to pursue the option because they felt they could get a better deal by going through the standard criminal court process. An additional 11.3% cited the same reason for dropping out of the VTC after starting the program.11 Findings showing that veterans avoid VTCs because of a lack of incentives align with research on other problem-solving courts. According to the Best Practice Standards published by All Rise (formerly the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), research consistently shows that drug courts are more effective when they provide significant incentives to participants.12 One recent review found, for example, that drug courts did more to reduce recidivism when the benefit of completing the program was avoiding a conviction entirely.13 This element of the policy framework is designed to augment VTCs and prosecutor-led diversion programs and create an array of appropriate interventions for the full spectrum of veterans who enter the criminal justice system. It is intended to provide veterans with an alternative in cases where a VTC or prosecutor-led diversion program restricts access based on the offense level or the discharge type; provides insufficient legal benefit to promote full veteran participation; or occurs in one of the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions where no VTC or prosecutor-led diversion program currently exists. By building on the efforts of existing initiatives, this element seeks to provide broad eligibility and utilize strong incentives that will encourage greater participation from veterans, generating the largest benefit for both veterans and public safety. It also anticipates that many programs based on this model will evolve into VTCs when local conditions warrant that approach.
Implementation Steps
Key Element One calls for the creation of a Veteran Sentencing Option (VSO) with probation and treatment used in place of incarceration. The implementation steps below define the essential elements of the VSO, including eligibility and incentives. More detail, particularly on the case plan that would accompany this option, is provided in Key Element Two.
1
VSO Definition:
- The VSO refers to the disposition or adjudication of a case being postponed pending completion of a case plan that consists of probation and treatment (see Key Element Two for details on the case plan).
2
VSO Eligibility:
- To ensure broad eligibility for a VSO, a veteran is defined as a person who swore an oath and entered any branch of the Armed Forces, including the National Guard or Reserve, and is either (1) currently serving in such branch and has not been discharged, or (2) was discharged or released from such service under any characterization except for those receiving a dishonorable discharge, unless the individual receiving the dishonorable discharge has been diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SUD), military sexual trauma (MST), traumatic brain injury (TBI), PTSD, or a mental health condition.14
- Law enforcement, court, and correctional personnel should verify the veteran status of all individuals being processed, using this definition of a veteran to identify those who may be eligible for a VSO.15
- All veterans should be eligible for a VSO if there are one or more indicators of mental or physical symptoms of a condition from military service that could have contributed to the offense. This includes the psychological effects of their time in service as well as from the period of family separation related to deployment.
- A presumption in favor of a VSO should exist for any offense that is eligible for probation; this presumption may only be overcome by a judicial finding that a VSO would not reasonably ensure public safety based on an individualized assessment of the veteran and consideration of the supervision, treatment, and other programs available in that community. This presumption may apply to veterans who previously absconded or were rearrested for a new offense while previously given the benefit of a VSO.
3
VSO Incentives:
- Veterans who successfully complete their case plan should avoid a term of incarceration upon successful completion and have a presumption in favor of either having their case dismissed and their conviction not recorded, or having their felony conviction converted to a misdemeanor.
- This presumption can only be overcome by a judicial finding that the veteran remains an ongoing risk to public safety and that such a dismissal or conversion would not reasonably ensure public safety. Such judicial determinations must be stated on the record and include the facts upon which the judge relied to reach it.
Key Element Two
Program Details
Key Element One details a pathway for veterans to be diverted from incarceration toward treatment and supervision, along with incentives encouraging them to complete their programs successfully. Building on those pathways, Key Element Two describes the components of this treatment and supervision, ensuring that they build on best practices in analogous problem-solving courts and community supervision. Drawing on this evidence base with respect to elements that are most important to aiding veterans, programs should provide treatment tailored to addressing the specific issues veterans face, create individualized case plans with clear goals for successful completion, allow judicial discretion, permit veterans to complete programs in their county of residence, and involve the veteran, their families, and victims and survivors in the process. Each of these components is spelled out in greater detail below. Evidence-based Treatment
Advances in medicine have generated sophisticated treatments that are uniquely designed to help veterans, such as dialectical behavior therapy.1 Systematic reviews consistently show the benefit of these treatments, with VA facilities outperforming non-VA facilities on various measures, including mortality, quality and safety of care, patient experience, and medication management.2,3,4 These findings are consistent with research indicating that non-VA providers are often poorly trained in evidence-based care for veterans' issues, such as using Cognitive Processing Therapy to treat PTSD.5 These findings underscore the importance of keeping veterans in their community so that they can access these tailored treatments while on probation, rather than being denied access to VA care while incarcerated.6 Clear and Well-Communicated Guidelines
Studies also show that problem-solving courts produce better outcomes when clear and coordinated strategies and goals are communicated in advance to participants. A national study of 23 drug courts found that providing written guidelines with predictable sanctions for drug use and other violations of program rules reduced the number of future crimes committed by participants and reduced substance abuse.7 Similarly, an evaluation of 86 drug courts across New York state indicated that the certainty of sanctions significantly improved three-year rearrest rates,8 and an additional analysis of 69 drug courts found that courts providing quick and accurate communication about sanctions and incentives produced 119% greater reductions in recidivism.9 Drug courts that provided all participants a written copy of the sanction guidelines also saw 72% greater savings in costs associated with their reductions in recidivism compared to courts that did not provide written guidelines.9 Taken together, these findings support a supervision approach emphasizing the achievement of goals that encourage prosocial behaviors and economic stability, in contrast with an approach that defines success as simply serving a specified length of time.10 Individualized Case Plans
While guidelines must be clearly communicated, research also shows that it is necessary to balance this predictability with the ability to modify sanctions and incentives based on the facts and circumstances of individual cases. Two multi-site drug court studies found superior outcomes when judges could exercise discretion and adjust plans based on the response of individuals to their treatment.11,9 Notably, this discretion should not be widely shared but instead concentrated among judges. Best practices research from All Rise notes that “due process and judicial ethics require judges to exercise independent discretion when resolving factual controversies, administering sanctions or incentives that affect a participant’s fundamental liberty interests, or ordering the conditions of supervision.”12
TONY MILLER was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division in the Iraq war, serving in a unit attached to special operations forces that conducted raids to capture or kill high-value targets. Miller lost close friends to combat and to suicides stemming from their experiences. He was haunted by memories of his combat service, the loss of his friends, and guilt caused by the fact that he survived and others did not.
Following his service, Miller faced multiple felonies. Ultimately, police conducted a raid on his house related to a drug possession case and found a felony amount of marijuana and a collection of firearms. The combination of drugs and guns put Miller on a path to prison. Stress caused by Miller’s interactions with the justice system exacerbated his PTSD symptoms, and he soon showed signs of being a suicide risk.
Miller reached an agreement to enter a program where he received treatment and supervision in lieu of prison. Within a year, he was doing well enough to begin an undergraduate social work program. He subsequently got married, bought a home, and completed a master’s degree through a social work program focused on veterans.
Today, Miller is a suicide prevention caseworker, proudly helping other veterans overcome challenges and find peace.
Reducing Logistical Challenges
One recurring issue in problem-solving courts relates to the arrest of people in an area different from where they live. This, in turn, means such individuals may be required to complete treatment and supervision far from their home. One study found that 4% of veterans did not enter a VTC because of residency issues, while another 4% dropped out for this same reason.13 Allowing people to access programming in their county of residency—regardless of where they are arrested—can eliminate logistical challenges that make program completion more difficult. Involvement of the Veteran and Veteran’s Family
Another important element of effective supervision concerns attention to the voices that are included in the process. From the start, it is important that people under supervision provide their own input in the creation of the case plan so that they take ownership over it.14 A study focusing on a supervision model in which a primary goal was the empowerment of the supervisee found that these individuals were 42% less likely to be rearrested compared to those receiving supervision that did not emphasize their input.15 The involvement of family can also be important for the successful completion of supervision. Studies consistently show that familial contact improves psychological health and recidivism among justice-involved individuals.16,17 Family involvement may be particularly helpful for justice-involved people outside of prison, with one study finding that familial support in one’s community reduced the likelihood of five-year recidivism by nearly 20%.18 Bringing in Victims and Survivors
Beyond family, victims and survivors should be recognized as vital actors in the supervision process, and their voices should be included to the extent that they are willing to participate. Systematic reviews have shown that victims and survivors are generally more pleased with the legal process when they are given a chance to speak,19 with one review of 58 studies finding that victim and survivor participation was associated with increased satisfaction in 63% of cases.20 Research into VTCs reveals similar patterns, with victims and survivors generally eager to be a part of their perpetrator’s treatment and supervision process.21
Implementation Steps
1
Veterans who are eligible for and choose to receive a VSO should enter a program that contains the following elements:
- Probation or pre-trial supervision
- Evidence-based treatment tailored to address the specific challenges facing veterans, such as PTSD, TBI, MST, or another mental health condition.
- A case plan that is:
- Developed by the court, corrections agencies, and/or appropriate experts
- Based on a professional assessment of the veteran’s specific risks and needs
- Created in conjunction with input from the veteran
- Communicated to the veteran at the start of the program
- Containing clear and individualized supervision and treatment goals, including guidelines that detail program rules, consequences for violating the rules, and incentives for compliance.
2
Judges should exercise discretion in:
- Deciding veteran eligibility (i.e., ensuring the veteran meets the eligibility criteria detailed in Key Element One)
- Establishing the conditions of the program, including the creation of the case plan
- Setting the terms for successful program completion and release upon that successful completion
- Holding a final hearing and determining if the veteran has successfully completed their program
3
All eligible veterans may request to have their supervision and treatment changed to their county of residence, provided that such a transfer would not interfere with:
- The ability of the veteran to receive appropriate supervision and treatment
- The rights of the victim according to existing law
4
Family members should be informed of case plans and progress if they choose to receive this information.22
- If a no-contact order is in place between the veteran and family members, that order should be evaluated periodically to determine if preventing contact is necessary.
5
Victims/survivors should have the opportunity to be involved in the process, including the opportunity to submit a written statement to be read at hearings where program completion is determined.23
- In domestic violence cases, the victim should have the opportunity to receive a victim advocate to mentor them throughout the process.
6
This program should be operated by existing pretrial and/or probation departments.
Key Element Three
Sentencing Mitigation
A broad range of veterans will benefit from the interventions laid out in the previous key elements. But there are several reasons why individuals may be ineligible for a VSO. Many veterans may be unable to obtain a VSO because the level of violence involved in their offense means it is not eligible for probation. Research has found an association between military combat exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes, with a particular link drawn between repeated combat deployments and post-deployment violent behavior.1 The importance of this connection is underscored by the greater frequency of multiple deployments among post-9/11 veterans.2 One study of nearly 300,000 post-9/11 veterans, for example, found that 33% were redeployed at least once.3 The fact that post-9/11 veterans are more likely to experience service conditions associated with violent behavior highlights the public safety imperative of addressing these conditions. Notably, veterans are 22% more likely than non-veterans to be sentenced for violent crimes, 11% more likely to receive sentences of ten years or more, and 78% more likely to serve life sentences or receive the death penalty.4 Thus, while the reasons for excluding veterans charged with certain violent offenses from a VSO may be justified, doing so also means that many justice-involved veterans would not have their service recognized by the system at all. As a result, these veterans will be placed into prison for lengthy sentences in part because of conditions created by the government that is prosecuting them. Key Element Three addresses this limitation, recognizing veterans who are not otherwise eligible for a VSO by offering them a pathway to sentence mitigation.
BERLYNN FLURY served in the Marine Corps as a bulk fuel specialist. She recalls being trained to kick in doors to hunt insurgents. She also recalls a darker side to her military service—sexual victimization by another Marine and exposure to methamphetamine by senior enlisted personnel. As Flury’s mental health deteriorated, she was offered discharge papers rather than a therapeutic intervention.
Struggling to readjust to civilian life, Flury found herself homeless and addicted to amphetamines at 22. She also faced multiple arrest warrants in several counties. One day, Flury overdosed and stopped breathing. While she survived, the warrants caught up with her and criminal charges followed.
Because the court recognized her veteran status, Flury was able to avoid prison and instead receive treatment and probation. Using a potential prison sentence as leverage, the court helped Flury get control of her addiction and complete treatment for her trauma.
Today, Flury is a certified peer support specialist and health and wellness coach at the VA. She has earned a bachelor's degree, owns a home, and serves on the board of two veterans organizations.
Implementation Steps
1
Veterans who are not eligible for a VSO, as detailed in Key Element One, should have their veteran status recognized as a factor in determining their sentence.5
2
This sentencing mitigation statute should contain the following elements:
- At arraignment, the court must notify veterans of the potential mitigating value of their veteran status.
- The court should offer veterans the ability to communicate their veteran status through counsel or by other means; this avoids the need for self-identification in open court, which may discourage some veterans from providing their true veteran status.6
- Veteran status may not be used as an aggravating factor, meaning that veterans cannot receive a more severe punishment by virtue of being a veteran.7
- Veteran status mitigation should be considered in addition to any other existing mitigation a jurisdiction provides for mental health conditions.
- Other trauma suffered by the veteran outside of military service should not be used to deny the existence of military trauma.8
- When considering sentencing mitigation, the court may take into consideration the following: overseas deployment, exposure to danger, individual merit earned during service, and service-connected disability ratings. When considering multiple factors, the court should award additional credit for each factor.9
- The court should not mandate a connection between the offense and a condition from military service in order to consider a veteran for sentencing mitigation.
- When the veteran can show a clear connection between the offense and a condition related to military service, and can show progress in treating that condition, prison is inappropriate in all but the most severe cases.
Key Element Four
Record Clearance
Once service members become involved with the justice system, the next phase of their journey is the challenge of living with a criminal record. Key Element Four addresses this challenge by establishing or expanding record clearance policies for veterans. Research consistently finds that having a criminal record reduces one’s ability to obtain housing, employment, and education. Questions about a criminal record are often used as a screener on job applications, with any indication of a criminal history frequently leading to an application being denied. One study found that White people with a criminal record were 50% less likely to receive a call back when compared to White individuals with identical resumes; among Black job seekers, those with records were 64% less likely to receive a call.1 The same roadblocks appear when individuals with criminal records attempt to secure housing. A 2014 study found that landlords showed units to 96% of prospective tenants without a criminal conviction but just 43% of those with a criminal history.2 Similar impacts can be found in access to education, with recent research finding that college applicants who indicated a low-level felony conviction were 2.5 times more likely to be rejected compared to equivalent applicants without a criminal record.3 This reduced ability to access stable housing, employment, and education can be pivotal. Scholarship consistently shows that jobs and housing are among factors that reduce the odds of a justice-involved individual committing future crimes.4,5 Removing barriers to housing for justice-involved veterans may be particularly important, as veterans are roughly twice as likely to experience homelessness, and homelessness serves as a more powerful predictor of suicide attempts among veterans.6 There are many examples of how record clearance policies can alleviate these challenges. One study in Michigan found that people receiving criminal record expungement had five-year rearrest rates of 7.1% and a two-year rearrest rate of 3.4%, indicating a relatively low public safety impact. In addition to low recidivism rates, the results showed that recipients’ prospects of employment improved by 13% one year after the expungement of a record, with wages increasing by 22%.7 Contrary to these findings, a recent study found that record sealing did not increase non-gig employment or overall earnings, indicating the need for more research on how record clearance policies affect employment, criminal justice involvement, and other outcomes.8
Implementation Steps
1
Jurisdictions should create laws allowing veterans to file for a streamlined expungement of all VSO-eligible criminal records.
- This opportunity should include the ability for veterans to apply for expungement retroactively, meaning that veterans are eligible for expungement even if their convictions occurred prior to this policy’s enactment.
- Once expungement has occurred, veterans should be permitted to answer “no” on employment, housing, and education applications when asked about the existence of prior arrests and convictions.
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.
7
Jurisdictions should develop a plan for ongoing evaluations of VSOs, including occasional independent evaluations that employ causal methods.
8
Congress should provide funding to incentivize and allow for this training, data collection, and evaluation.6
Conclusion
Veterans encountering the criminal justice system today confront a patchwork of interventions designed to assist them. These programs vary considerably across jurisdictions and are often inaccessible to veterans or undesirable because of location, strict eligibility criteria, and insufficient incentives. To build upon existing efforts, CCJ’s Veterans Justice Commission convened a group of experts to develop a model policy framework. The framework produced by the group broadens eligibility and creates a uniform set of alternatives to prosecution and incarceration based on best practices used in analogous problem-solving courts and community supervision. In so doing, this model policy framework sets the stage for more effective and appropriate interventions for veterans, and ultimately for better safety, health, and justice outcomes for veterans and their families and communities.
The Veterans Justice Commission presents this framework in the hope that the federal government and states will adopt these proposed policy reforms. Moreover, the Commission recognizes the resources required to effectively implement these changes and recommends that the federal government incentivize state adoption by providing funding for the training, data collection, and evaluation outlined in the policy framework.
People who have served this nation in our armed forces have sacrificed to protect us. It is time to better recognize that sacrifice and take steps to ensure that our veterans are not lost in our prisons and jails, but instead receive interventions that can help them resume their responsibilities to their families, their communities, and their country.
About the Model Policy Framework Committee
The Model Policy Framework Committee is a group of criminal justice experts and practitioners who were called upon by the Veterans Justice Commission. They were charged with creating a policy framework that expands opportunities for veterans to access community supervision instead of prison while establishing key elements to help jurisdictions provide such opportunities through evidence-based practices that address veterans’ unique challenges. Members of the committee presented the framework to the Criminal Justice Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In August 2023, ALEC adopted the Veterans Justice Act, a model policy based on the framework. Committee members participate in their individual, not their institutional, capacities. Professional affiliations do not imply institutional endorsement.
Evan Seamone - In Memoriam
Evan Seamone, a member of the Model Policy Framework Committee and adviser to the Veterans Justice Commission, passed away on July 25th, 2023, after a short illness. A decorated officer who spent two decades in the US Judge Advocate General's Corps, Evan provided invaluable insight and support to the Committee and the Commission, particularly because of his expertise in veterans’ benefits. The Committee dedicates this report to Evan in honor of his years of work in service of veterans.
Committee Members
Carla Bugg
Criminal Justice Services Coordinator, Recovery Organization of Support Specialists; US Army Reserves
John Choi
Ramsey County Attorney
John Flynn
Erie County District Attorney; Board Chair, National District Attorneys Association; US Navy
Pelicia Hall
Senior Vice President for ViaPath Technologies; former Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Greg Hamilton
Chief Customer Officer, CIVICTEC; Sheriff, Travis County, TX (ret.)
Brock Hunter
Co-founder, Veterans Defense Project; Criminal Defense Attorney; U.S. Army
Justice Eileen C. Moore
Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal; Army Nurse Corps, U.S. Army
Evan Seamone (in memoriam)
U.S. Army (ret.); Fellow, National Institute of Military Justice; Chief of Military Justice, Fort Benning
Jim Seward
Veterans Justice Commission, Council on Criminal Justice; Colonel, U.S. Army; Former State and Federal Prosecutor
Committee Advisers
Robin Olsen, Principal Policy Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute
Nelson Bunn, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association
Stephen Earnhart, Assistant District Attorney, Erie County
Suggested Citation: Council on Criminal Justice. (2023). Alternatives to Prosecution and Incarceration for Justice-Involved Veterans: A Model Policy Framework. https://counciloncj.foleon.com/veterans-commission/vjc-reports/model-policy-framework