Not-so-special forces? Revisiting the “veteran effect” in the context of prison research

Abstract

Purpose

Prior studies of incarcerated military veterans center on the notion that they are fundamentally different from non-veterans in terms of criminogenic risk. Some scholars have argued that prior military service is a liability in terms of institutional adjustment and may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative outcomes; others have posited that it might serve as an asset and subsequently work to buffer the pains of imprisonment.

Methods

Our study contributes to this burgeoning body of research by employing a series of survival analyses to explore the possibility of a “veteran effect” among a sample of veteran and non-veteran offenders in the state of Minnesota.

Results

Despite statistically significant (albeit modest) differences between veterans and non-veterans in the prevalence of theoretically relevant variables, such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, we observed no differences between the two groups regarding the likelihood of experiencing various metrics of institutional adjustment and recidivism.

Conclusions

Our findings stand in contrast to those of previous studies on incarcerated veterans and call into question the theoretical assumptions (and the subsequent criminal justice policy on which those assumptions are based) regarding the effects of prior military experience on prison (mal)adjustment.

Introduction

The past three decades have witnessed renewed academic interest in the study of justice-involved military veterans, particularly within the correctional context. As a group, incarcerated veterans total more than 180,000 across the United States' correctional system and account for 8.4% of all inmates housed in state and federal facilities while comprising approximately 9% of the general adult population (Bronson, Carson, Noonan, & Berzofsky, 2015). To this end, there now exists a burgeoning body of scholarship devoted to examining the experience of military veterans across a litany of prison outcomes (Brooke, 2020; Brooke & Peck, 2019; Burke, Keaton, Schroeder, & Ocheltree, 2019; May, Stives, Wells, & Wood, 2017; Morgan, Logan, & Cullen, 2019). The guiding edict of this research is based on assumed key differences between veteran and non-veteran inmates with respect to their sociodemographic histories and past experiences and is generally couched in terms of two competing perspectives.

Some have argued that, by virtue of their military experience, veterans should be particularly resilient to the pains of imprisonment and therefore fare better across metrics of prison adjustment (Logan & Pare, 2017). This argument presupposes the notion that serving in the military is a difficult, but ultimately positive, endeavor that builds character and fosters both resiliency and resolve under adverse situations (see also Wright, Carter, & Cullen, 2005). Conversely, others have posited that many of these same experiences could have a negative impact on prison adjustment and make veterans especially sensitive to institutional pains (Drapela, Lutze, Tollefsbol, & Pimley, 2019; Fleming, Simpson, & Prescan, 2013). This view is congruent with the assumption that the military exerts both deleterious and brutalizing effects on servicemembers which can manifest in the form of serious mental health conditions and might be exacerbated by the prison environment (see also Athens & Ulmer, 2003). For the purposes of the current study, each perspective represents a variation of the same assumption: Military veterans are unique with respect to their likelihood of experiencing criminogenic outcomes. They both maintain that the social, personal, and psychological characteristics of military veterans should affect how they experience the criminal justice system, but they differ on exactly how these effects should play out. Using administrative data on veterans and non-veterans under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC), we draw on previous insights regarding the military-crime nexus and employ a series of survival analyses to examine the extent to which veterans and non-veterans are (dis)similar to one another across various metrics of institutional adjustment and recidivism.

The aforementioned studies and the theoretical foundation on which they are based represent important contributions to the field of criminal justice and are consistent with the shift toward evidence-based practice (EBP) that helps with establishing “what works” to address the needs of vulnerable, underserved populations such as military veterans (Cullen, Myer, & Latessa, 2009). Indeed, these perspectives have served to guide practitioners and administrators in the implementation of veteran-specific criminal justice policies. These include, among others, the advent of veteran-specific risk assessment instruments, specialized veteran courts, and veteran prison wings (Elbogen et al., 2010; Elbogen et al., 2014). Regarding the latter, veteran wings (similar to the purpose of specialized veterans courts) were created for the specific purpose of helping ex-servicemen and women successfully reintegrate into society, and are characterized by a focus on programs directed at mental health, addiction, and substance abuse treatment. They also incorporate into their curriculum employment skills training and have thus far been used in several states across the country (Edelman, Berger, & Crawford, 2016; Hill, 2018; National Institute of Corrections, 2018). While veteran-only cellblocks have only been recently implemented, correctional officials maintain that recreating a prison atmosphere similar to the trappings of military life can reduce the pains of imprisonment for incarcerated veterans—characteristics over which these former soldiers are likely to bond (Connor, 2017). Importantly, however, the effectiveness of these veteran-specific initiatives needs to be rigorously evaluated, as “policy and practice reform [in this area] has been hampered by a lack of empirical data, which increases the risk of responding to [incarcerated] veterans based on…unsubstantiated assumptions which [could] impact negatively on ex-service personnel” (Albertson, Banks, & Murray, 2017, p. 30).

Despite increasing academic interest in the military-crime nexus, empirical studies on incarcerated veterans constitute only a fraction of the research devoted to the study of justice-involved veterans. This is problematic because, despite the commonly held assumption that ex-servicemembers are “unique,” the body of scholarship used to defend this assertion among veteran inmates is far from resolute. In order to inform “best practices” regarding protocol for incarcerated veterans, replication studies are needed to “take stock” of empirical evidence (McNeeley & Warner, 2015), especially given the fact that various criminal justice policies and practices evolve over time and across different social and political contexts (Logan & Link, 2019).