NPS Appendices 122722

Appendix Table of Contents
Document

Page

APPENDIX 1: The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

2

APPENDIX 2: National Prisoner Statistics Program: NPS-1B 2022 data
collection form

7

APPENDIX 3: Bibliography of works citing the National Prisoner Statistics
Program during 2020, 2021, 2022

15

APPENDIX 4: Substantive comments received by BJS in response to the
Federal Register Notifications of OMB review of the National Prisoner
Statistics collection

20

APPENDIX 5: National Prisoner Statistics Program: Letter from BJS to
accompany the 2022 data collection form

58

APPENDIX 6: National Prisoner Statistics Program: Screenshots of 2021
NPS-1B secure web data collection tool

60

APPENDIX 7: National Prisoner Statistics Program: Non-response
follow-up email

77

APPENDIX 8: National Prisoner Statistics Program: Email request for
final tabulation review and approval

79

APPENDIX 9: National Prisoner Statistics Program: NPS-1B(T) 2022 data
collection form

81

1

Appendix 1:
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

2

DERIVATION
Title I
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
(Public Law 90-351)
42 U.S.C. § 3711, et seq.
AN ACT to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness,
fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other
purposes.
As Amended By
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970
(Public Law 91-644)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973
(Public Law 93-83)
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974
(Public Law 93-415)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-430)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-503)
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979
(Public Law 96-157)
THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1984
(Public Law 98-473)
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1986
(Public Law 99-570-Subtitle K)
THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
TITLE VI, SUBTITLE C - STATE AND LOCAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS
(Public Law 100-690)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990
(Public Law 101-647)
BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
(Public Law 103-159)
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
(Public Law 103-322)
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED
(Public Law 103-209)
and
CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998
(Public Law 105-251)

3

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
CHAPTER 46 - SUBCHAPTER III
[TITLE I - PART C]
42 USC § 3731

[Sec. 301.] Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter [part] to provide for and encourage the collection and analysis of
statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal justice
system and related aspects of the civil justice system and to support the development of information and
statistical systems at the Federal, State, and local levels to improve the efforts of these levels of government
to measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal
justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system. The Bureau shall utilize to the maximum
extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities responsible for the collection and analysis of
criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter [part], the Bureau shall
give primary emphasis to the problems of State and local justice systems.
42 USC § 3732

[Sec. 302.] Bureau of Justice Statistics

(a) Establishment. There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the
Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this subchapter [part] as
“Bureau”).
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions. The Bureau shall be headed by a Director
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall have had
experience in statistical programs. The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall report to the Attorney General
through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in any other employment than that
of serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization,
agency, or institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau. The Bureau is authorized to–
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies,
institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes related
to this subchapter [part]; grants shall be made subject to continuing compliance with standards for
gathering justice statistics set forth in rules and regulations promulgated by the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes against the
elderly, and civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social
indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, juvenile
delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical factors related to crime, civil disputes, and
juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, and local justice policy and decision making;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice
system at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent,
distribution, and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, and local
levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of statistical
information, about criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, and local levels, and
about the extent, distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and
at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all
aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including crimes against the
elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the
various States;
4

(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity
of justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter [title];
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State Governments in matters
relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity
as feasible in statistical systems of the executive and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and local
governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local governments
with access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance to the
States and units of local government relating to collection, analysis, or dissemination of justice
statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection, aggregation,
analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the
criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics
(including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high technology
crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other Federal agencies to
improve the availability and quality of Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of
information and statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and attributes
of drug offenses, drug related offenses and drug dependent offenders and further provide for the
establishment of a national clearinghouse to maintain and update a comprehensive and timely data
base on all criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the
condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State and local levels with
particular attention to programs and intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the overall
national anti- drug strategy and to provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse for the
gathering of data generated by Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies on their drug
enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal justice information
systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis or
dissemination of data and statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug dependent
offenders;
(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of
criminal history record information, information systems, arrest warrant, and stolen vehicle record
information and information systems and support research concerning the accuracy, completeness,
and inclusiveness of other criminal justice record information;
(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other nations
concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the development
of uniform justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g of this title and
identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and
information policies which impact on Federal and State criminal justice operations and related
statistical activities; and
5

(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VIII [part H] of this chapter [title].
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination. To insure that all justice statistical collection,
analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner, the Director is authorized to–
(1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and
facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without
reimbursement therefore, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities for
purposes of data collection and analysis;
(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to
carry out the purposes of this chapter [title];
(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from
criminal justice records; and
(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding information
systems, information policy, and data.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies. Federal agencies requested to furnish
information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this section shall provide such information to
the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary. In recommending
standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall consult with representatives of
State and local government, including, where appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.
42 USC § 3733

[Sec. 303.] Authority for 100 per centum grants

A grant authorized under this subchapter [part] may be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each
project for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever feasible as a condition of
approval of a grant under this subchapter [part], that the recipient contribute money, facilities, or services to
carry out the purposes for which the grant is sought.
42 USC § 3735

[Sec. 304.] Use of data

Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and shall be gathered in
a manner that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a particular individual
other than statistical or research purposes.

6

Appendix 2:
National Prisoner Statistics Program:
NPS-1B data collection form

7

NPS-1B
RETURN
TO

Abt Associates
National Prisoner Statistics
Survey
10 Fawcett Street Cambridge,
MA 02138

OMB No. 1121-0102: Approval Expires 01/31/2023

NPS-1B

FORM
(7-31-2022)

National Prisoner Statistics
Summary of Sentenced
Population Movement 2022

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
and ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT

ABT ASSOCIATES INC.

DATA SUPPLIED BY
Title

NAME

TELEPHONE

Area Code Number

Extension

FAX
NUMBER

Area Code Number

E-MAIL ADDRESS

GENERAL INFORMATION
• If you have any questions, contact the Abt Associates NPS Project Director, Walter Campbell (617-520-2347 or
walter_campbell@abtassoc.com) or the BJS NPS Program Manager, E. Ann Carson (202-616-3496 or
elizabeth.carson@ojp.usdoj.gov).
• Please complete the questionnaire before February 28, 2023 by using nps.abtassociates.com, by emailing a scanned copy of the
form to walter_campbell@abtassoc.com, by mailing the completed form to Abt Associates at the address above, or by FAXing
all pages to 1-617-218-4500.
• Please retain a copy of the completed form for your records.
What types of inmates are included? Inmates
under your jurisdiction on December 31, 2022
• INCLUDE inmates under your jurisdiction held in your prison facilities (e.g., prisons, penitentiaries, and correctional institutions; boot
camps; prison farms; reception, diagnostic, and classification centers; release centers, halfway houses, and road camps; forestry and
conservation camps; vocational training facilities; prison hospitals; and drug and alcohol treatment facilities for prisoners).
• INCLUDE inmates who are temporarily absent (less than 30 days), out to court, or on work release.
• INCLUDE inmates under your jurisdiction held in local jails, private facilities, and other States’ or Federal facilities.
• INCLUDE inmates in your facilities who are serving a sentence for your jurisdiction and another jurisdiction at the same time.
• EXCLUDE inmates held in your facilities for another jurisdiction.
Inmates under your custody on December 31, 2022
• INCLUDE all inmates held in your facilities.
• INCLUDE inmates housed in your facilities for other jurisdictions.
• EXCLUDE inmates held in local jails, private facilities, and facilities in other jurisdictions.

BURDEN STATEMENT
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.5 hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC 20531; and to the Office of Management
and Budget, OMB No. 1121-0102, Washington, DC 20503.

8

REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS
• If you are unable to report an item using NPS definitions and reporting criteria, describe the definitions or
criteria you used in the NOTES section.
• If your jurisdiction, by law or regulation, cannot have the type of inmate described by an item, write "NA" (Not
Applicable) in the space provided.
• If your jurisdiction had the type of inmate but you are unable to determine the number separately by item, report
the combined count in one item, write "NR" (Not Reported) in the remaining items, and specify in NOTES.
• If your jurisdiction can have the type of inmate described, but did not have any during
December 31, 2022, enter "0" (Zero) in the space provided.

SECTION I – YEAR-END PRISON COUNTS
1. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your
custody —
• Exclude inmates held in local jails, private facilities, and
facilities in other jurisdictions.

Data reported for December 31, 2021

• Include inmates held in any public facility run by your state,
including halfway houses, camps, farms, training/treatment
centers, and hospitals.

a. Had a total maximum
sentence of more than 1 year
(Include inmates with
consecutive sentences that add to
more than 1 year.)

Male

Female

Male

Female

Update as needed

b. Had a total maximum
sentence of 1 year or less

c. Were unsentenced
d. TOTAL
(Sum of items 1a to 1c)

Mark (X) this box if custody numbers for 2022 are not
comparable to 2021. Explain in NOTES.

2. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your
jurisdiction —
a. Had a total maximum
sentence of more than 1 year
(Include inmates with
consecutive sentences that add to
more than 1 year.)

Male

Female

Male

Female
Update as needed

b. Had a total maximum
sentence of 1 year or less

c. Were unsentenced
d. TOTAL
(Sum of items 2a to 2c)

Mark (X) this box if jurisdiction numbers for 2022 are not
comparable to 2021. Explain in NOTES.

Page 2

9

FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

3. On December 31, 2022 how many inmates under your
jurisdiction were housed in a privately operated
correctional facility —

Data reported for December 31, 2021

• Exclude inmates housed in any publicly operated facility, even
if under contract.
• Include inmates housed in any privately operated halfway
houses, treatment facilities, hospitals, or other special facility.
Male

Female

Male

Female
Update as needed

a. In your State

b. In another State
c. Are these inmates included
in item 2?

1
2

Yes
No

Yes
No

(If item 3c is "NO", explain in the NOTES section.)

4. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your
jurisdiction were housed in local facilities operated by
a county or other local authority?
• Exclude inmates housed in privately operated facilities
(reported in items 3a and 3b).
• Include inmates housed in local facilities under contract or other
arrangement.
Male
Female

Male

Female

a. TOTAL

Update as needed

(If "0" (zero), skip to item 5.)
b. Are these inmates included
in item 2?

Male
1
2

Yes
No

Female
1
2

Yes
No

(If item 4b is "NO", explain in the NOTES section.)

5. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your
jurisdiction were housed —
• Exclude inmates housed in privately operated facilities
(reported in items 3a and 3b) and inmates housed in local jails
(reported in item 4a).
Male
Female

Male

Female
Update as needed

a. In Federal facilities
b. In other States’ facilities —
• Include only those inmates housed in State-operated
facilities in other States.
Male
Female

Male

Female
Update as needed

(If "0" (zero) in items 5a and 5b, skip to item 6.)
Male
c. Are these inmates included
in item 2?
Yes
1
No
2

Female
1
2

Yes
No

(If item 5c is "NO", explain in the NOTES section.)
FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

10

Page 3

SECTION I – YEAR-END PRISON COUNTS – Continued

6. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your
jurisdiction were —
Female
Male
a. White (not of Hispanic origin.)
b. Black or African American
(not of Hispanic origin.)

7. Between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022,
how many inmates sentenced to more than 1 year
under your jurisdiction were admitted as —
Male
Female
a. New court commitments
(Include probation violators
entering prison on probated
sentence, split sentences, and!
shock probation.)
b. Parole violators —

c. Hispanic or Latino

(1) with a new sentence

d. American Indian/Alaska
Native (not of Hispanic origin.)

(2) without a new sentence
(Include violators returned
without a new sentence, those
held pending a hearing, and
those not formally revoked.)

e. Asian (not of Hispanic origin.)

c. Other conditional release
violators (Include returns
from mandatory release other than
parole.)

f. Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander (not of
Hispanic origin.)

(1) with a new sentence

g. Two or more races (not of
Hispanic origin.)
h. Additional categories in
your information system –
Specify

(2) without a new sentence
d. Transfers from other
jurisdictions (Include inmates
received from other jurisdictions to
continue sentences already in
force.)

i. Not known

e. AWOL returns, with or
without new sentences

j. TOTAL (Sum of items 6a to 6i
should equal item 2d)

f. Escapee returns, with or
without new sentences
g. Returns from appeal or bond
(Include all inmates reinstated after
long-term absences of more than
30 days.)

SECTION II – ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES
DURING 2022

h. Other admissions – Specify
Reporting Instructions

• Include only those inmates with a total maximum sentence of
more than 1 year.
• Include inmates under your jurisdiction, regardless of where
they are housed.

i. TOTAL
(Sum of items 7a to 7h)

• Exclude short-term movements (less than 30 days) where
jurisdiction is retained (e.g., to court and on furlough.)
• Escape include inmates that were physically within facility
boundaries at time of disappearance
• AWOLs include inmates that were physically outside facility
boundaries at time of disappearance, example-workrelease

Page 4

11

FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

8. Between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022,
how many inmates sentenced to more than 1 year
under your jurisdiction were released as—
a. Unconditional releases
(1) Expirations of sentence
(Include inmates who served
their maximum sentence
minus credits.)

Male

9. How many inmates with a total maximum sentence of
more than one year were —
Male
Female

a. Under your jurisdiction on
January 1, 2022

Female

b. Admitted during 2022
(Transcribe from item 7i)

(2) Commutations (Include
inmates whose sentence was
lowered to time served to
allow for an immediate
unconditional release.)

c. Released during 2022
(Transcribe item 8i)
d. Under your jurisdiction on
December 31, 2022
(Add items 9a and 9b, subtract
item 9c, should equal item 2a.)

(3) Other unconditional
releases – Specify

SECTION III – PRISON SYSTEM CAPACITY
b. Conditional releases
(1) Probations (Include
inmates released on shock
probation or placed on
probation and conditionally
released.)

10. On December 31, 2022, what was the capacity of
your prison system? (Exclude capacity of private facilities.)
Male
Female
a. Rated capacity (The number
of beds or inmates assigned by
rating officials to institutions
within your jurisdiction.)

(2) Supervised mandatory
releases (Include inmates
who by law had to be
conditionally released.)

b. Operational capacity (The
number of inmates that can be
accommodated based on staff,
existing programs, and services
in institutions within your
jurisdiction.)

(3) Discretionary paroles

c. Design capacity (The number
of inmates that planners or
architects intended for all
institutions within your
jurisdiction.)

(4) Other conditional
releases – Specify

SECTION IV – SPECIAL CUSTODY POPULATIONS
c. Deaths

d. AWOLs

e. Escapes from confinement

11. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates in your
custody, plus those held in private prisons, were under
age 18?
Male
Female

12. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates in your
custody, plus those held in private prisons, were
Male

f. Transfers to other
jurisdictions (Include inmates
sent to other jurisdictions to
continue sentences already in
force.)

Female

U. S. Citizens
Non-U.S. Citizens
Unknown Citizenship
13. On what total population is your count of citizens and
non-citizens based? (please check only one):

g. Releases to appeal or bond
h. Other releases – Specify

Prisoners in our physical custody AND private prisons
(Q1d+Q3)
Prisoners in our physical custody only (no private prisons)
(Q1d)
Prisoners under our jurisdiction (Q2d)

i. TOTAL
(Sum of items 8a to 8h)
FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

Some other total population
12

Page 5

16. On December 31, 2022, which of the following
described HIV testing among inmates already in
custody? (Check all that apply).

SECTION V – HIV/AIDS
Reporting Instructions

•

• For the following section HIV test includes any type of test, oral or
blood, used to diagnose HIV among adults.

Exclude all testing done during the entry and discharge
processes.
Offered HIV test during routine medical examinations

• If you are unable to report an item using NPS definitions and
reporting criteria, describe the definitions or criteria you used in the
NOTES section.

Tested inmates in high-risk groups
Tested upon request from the inmate

• Exclude inmates held in local jails, private facilities and facilities in
other jurisdictions.

Tested upon clinical indication

• Include inmates held in any public facility run by your state, including
halfway houses, camps, farms, training/treatment centers, and
hospitals.

Tested upon court order
Tested following involvement in an incident
Other (Please specify)

14. On December 31, 2022, which of the following
best described HIV testing among inmates entering
your facilities? (Check only one).
•

Did not provide HIV testing

Include all testing done upon entry such as during the intake
process, reception or shortly thereafter.

17. On December 31, 2022, which of the following best
described HIV testing among inmates during
discharge planning?(Check only one).

All inmates were tested for HIV regardless of whether the
inmate agreed (Skip to Question 16)

•
•

All inmates were told that an HIV test will be performed, and
the test was given unless the inmate declined

All inmates were offered HIV testing

All inmates were told that HIV testing was available, and the
inmate must have requested a test

Some inmates were offered HIV testing
Inmates were only tested upon request from the inmate

Inmates were only tested based upon an assessment of
high-risk behavior, medical history, or other clinical evaluation

Other (Please specify)

Not all inmates were told that an HIV test is available, but were
tested if they requested one
Other (Please specify)
Did not provide HIV testing (Skip to Question 16)

Include all testing done upon exit or during the discharge process.
Exclude all testing done upon entry or among inmates already in
custody.

Did not provide HIV testing

18. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates with
diagnosed HIV infection were under your custody?
•

15. On December 31, 2022, which of the following
best described consent for HIV testing among
inmates entering your facility? (Check only one).

Include all inmates under your custody, regardless of sentence
length, with diagnosed HIV infection who did not have HIVrelated symptoms, had HIV-related symptoms or had confirmed
AIDS.
Male

Female

General consent for medical services was obtained
Separate consent, specifically for HIV testing, was obtained
Inmate consent was not obtained

Page 6

13

FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

SECTION VI – NOTES
Please review last year’s explanatory notes and make any corrections, additions, or deletions necessary for 2022.
Please mark (X) box to indicate that you have reviewed and updated the notes.

FORM NPS-1B (7-31-2022)

14

Page 7

Appendix 3:
Bibliography of works citing the National Prisoner
Statistics Program during 2020, 2021, 2022

15

Publications using the National Prisoner Statistics program data, 2020-2022
2020
Ansolabehere S, Fraga BL, Schaffner BF. 2020. The CPS Voting and Registration Supplement Overstates
Minority Turnout. journals.uchicago.edu.
Beckett K, Brydolf-Horwitz M. 2020. A kinder, gentler drug war? Race, drugs, and punishment in 21st
century America. Punishment & Society, 22(4), pp.509-533.
Brooks B. 2020. From Tough Justice to Smart on Crime: Criminal Justice Lessons from the Lone Star
State. Policy Quarterly, 16(2).
Cameron CM, Gordon SC. 2020. Fire Alarms and Democratic Accountability. Link:
cameron_gordon_fire_alarms.pdf (princeton.edu).
Camhi N, Mistak D, Wachino V. 2020. Medicaid's Evolving Role in Advancing the Health of People
Involved in the Justice System. Issue Brief. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund. Link: Medicaid’s
Evolving Role in Advancing the Health of People Involved in the Justice System
(commonwealthfund.org).
Craigie TA, Grawert A, Kimble C. 2020. Conviction, Imprisonment, and Lost Earnings. Brennan Center for
Justice.
Daniel R. 2020. Since you asked: what data exists about Native American people in the criminal justice
system?. Prison Policy Initiative.
Ghosh PK, Hoover GA, Liu Z. 2020. Do State Minimum Wages Affect the Incarceration Rate?. Southern
Economic Journal, 86(3), pp.845-872.
Grubb JA. 2020. Who Goes to Prison and Why?. Routledge Handbook on American Prisons.
Hoover E. 2020. Comprehensive Policies Can Improve Probation and Parole. livingfacts.org.
Kang-Brown J, Montagnet C, Schattner-Elmaleh E, Hinds O. 2020. People in Prison in 2019. Vera
Evidence Brief. Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
Malone CA, King RD. 2020. Stressed to the Punishing Point: Economic Insecurity and State Imprisonment
Rates. Social Currents, 7(6), pp.491-507.
Martin BT, Shannon SK. 2020. State variation in the drug felony lifetime ban on Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families: Why the modified ban matters. Punishment & Society, 22(4), pp.439-460.
Momen RE. 2020. Mountain State Women Aren't Always Free: The State of Women's Incarceration in
West Virginia. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. Link: WVCBP-WomenIncarceration-Report-.pdf (wvpolicy.org).
Myers SL, Sabol WJ, 2020. Unemployment and racial differences in imprisonment. In The economics of
race and crime (pp. 189-209). Routledge.
Pyrooz DC, Mitchell MM. 2020. The use of restrictive housing on gang and non-gang affiliated inmates in
US prisons: Findings from a national survey of correctional agencies. Justice Quarterly, 37(4), pp.590615.
Reich AD, Prins SJ. 2020. The disciplining effect of mass incarceration on labor organization. American
Journal of Sociology, 125(5), pp.1303-1344.

16

Schnepel KT. 2020. COVID-19 in U.S. State and Federal Prisons. Washington, DC: Council on Criminal
Justice. Microsoft Word - FINAL_Schnepel_Design.docx (courthousenews.com)
Simpson SA, Steil J, Mehta A. 2020. Planning beyond mass incarceration. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 40(2), pp.130-138.
Stober E. 2020. The race warfare and the United States justice system. Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences 2, (6), 1-14.
Taylor TN. 2020. Judicial Elections, Public Opinion, and their Impact on State Criminal Justice Policy.
uknowledge.uky.edu.
Warner C, Kaiser J, Houle JN. 2020. Locked out of the labor market? State-level hidden sentences and
the labor market outcomes of recently incarcerated young adults. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation
Journal of the Social Sciences, 6(1), pp.132-151.
Wong B, Bernstein S, Jay J, Siegel M 2020. Differences in racial disparities in firearm homicide across
cities: The role of racial residential segregation and gaps in structural disadvantage. Journal of the
National Medical Association, 112(5), pp.518-530.

2021
Albuquerquemello VPD, Ramos FS. 2021. Legalização das drogas e comportamento estratégico. Brazilian
Journal of Political Economy 41: 525-537.
Brandariz JA. 2021. The Upper Limit: How Low-Wage Work Defines Punishment and Welfare, de
François Bonnet. University of California Press, 2019. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica,
19(1), pp.1-7.
Britton T. 2021. Educational Opportunity and the Carceral System: Sentencing Policies and Black Men's
College Enrollment. The Review of Black Political Economy, p.00346446211036763.
Brouillette J-F, Jones CI, Klenow PJ. 2021. Race and economic well-being in the United States. NBER
Working Paper 29539. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gottlieb A, Charles P, McLeod B, Kjellstrand J, Bonsu J. 2021. Were California’s decarceration efforts
smart? A quasi-experimental examination of racial, ethnic, and gender disparities. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 48(1), pp.116-134.
Gunderson A. 2021. Who punishes more? partisanship, punitive policies, and the puzzle of democratic
governors. Political Research Quarterly, p.1065912920987078.
Johnson KR. 2021. Two Regimes of Prison Data Collection.
Kajeepeta S, Rutherford CG, Keyes KM, El-Sayed AM, Prins SJ. 2020. County jail incarceration rates and
county mortality rates in the United States, 1987–2016. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S1),
S109-S115.
Kajeepeta S, Mauro PM, Keyes KM, El-Sayed AM, Rutherford CG, Prins SJ. 2021. Association between
county jail incarceration and cause-specific county mortality in the USA, 1987–2017: a retrospective,
longitudinal study. The Lancet Public Health, 6(4), pp.e240-e248.
Kang-Brown J, Montagnet C, Heiss J. 2021. People in Jail and Prison in 2020. Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute
of Justice.

17

Kang-Brown J, Montagnet C, Heiss J. 2021. People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021. Brooklyn, NY: Vera
Institute of Justice.
Lerman AE, Mooney AC. 2021. The downside of downsizing: Persistence of racial disparities following
state prison reform. Punishment and Society. Link: The downside of downsizing: Persistence of racial
disparities following state prison reform (sagepub.com).
Mair CD. 2021. New York’s War on Drugs and the Impact on Female Incarceration Rates. Feminist
Criminology, 16(2), pp.147-164.
Myers SL Jr, Sabol WJ, Xu M. 2021. Determinants of racial disparities in female incarceration rates, 20002018. Review of Black Political Economy. Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446211051078
Norris S, Pecenco M, Weaver J. 2021. The effect of incarceration on mortality. Available at SSRN
3644719.
Nowotny KM, Seide K, Brinkley-Rubinstein L. 2021. Risk of COVID-19 infection among prison staff in the
United States. BMC Public Health. 21, (1036).
Papp J, Mueller-Smith M. 2021. Benchmarking the Criminal Justice Administrative Records System’s Data
Infrastructure. Ann Arbor 1001: 48106-1248.
Petach L, Pena AA. 2021. Local labor market inequality in the age of mass incarceration. The Review of
Black Political Economy, 48(1), pp.7-41.
Spelman W. 2021. Why birth cohorts commit crime at different rates. Social Science Research. Link:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102628.
Spencer MK. 2021. Safer Sex? The Effect of AIDS Risk on Birth Rates. Link: SaferSex.pdf
(melissakspencer.com).
Taylor TN. 2021. Judicial Selection and Criminal Punishment: Trial Court Elections, Sentencing, and
Incarceration in the States. Journal of Law and Courts, 9(2), pp.305-335.
Weidner RR, Schultz J. 2021. Examining the relationship between incarceration and population health:
The roles of region and urbanicity. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(4), pp.403-426.

2022
Alexander M, Wildeman C, Roehrkasse A. 2022. Future Projections of Child Welfare Outcomes in the
United States Using a Bayesian State-Space Model. In PAA 2022 Annual Meeting. PAA.
Aslim EG, Mungan MC, Yu H. 2022. A Welfare Analysis of Medicaid and Crime. George Mason Law &
Economics Research Paper. Apr 10(22-11).
Beckett K. 2022. Ending Mass Incarceration: Why It Persists and How to Achieve Meaningful Reform.
Oxford University Press.
Canaparo G, McLaughlin PA, Palagashvili L. 2022. Count the Code: Quantifying Federalization of Criminal
Statutes. The Heritage Foundation Special Report.
Currie J, Mueller-Smith M, Rossin-Slater M. 2022. Violence while in utero: The impact of assaults during
pregnancy on birth outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(3), pp.525-540.
Davis AD. 2022. Effects of Intervention and Prevention Programs on Youth Risk-Taking Behavior in
Monroe County (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

18

Finlay K, Mueller-Smith M, Papp J. 2022. The Criminal Justice Administrative Records.
Gollu G, Zapryanova M. 2022. The Effect of Medicaid on Recidivism: Evidence from Medicaid Suspension
and Termination Policies. mzapryanova.github.io.
Grunwald B. 2022. Toward an Optimal Decarceration Strategy. Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev.;33:1.
Gunderson A. 2022. Who Deserves Mercy? State Pardons, Commutations, and the Determinants of
Clemency. preprints.apsanet.org.
Indiana IN, Montana MO. 2022. APPENDIX A: General Pretrial Population Diversion Statutes. VIRGINIA
STATE CRIME COMMISSION. Jun 30:40.
Johnson-Motoyama M, Ginther DK, Phillips R, Beer OW, Merkel-Holguin L, Fluke J. 2022. Differential
response and the reduction of child maltreatment and foster care services utilization in the US from
2004 to 2017. Child maltreatment. Jan 21:10775595211065761.
Letourneau EJ, Roberts TW, Malone L, Sun Y. 2022. No Check We Won't Write: A Report on the High
Cost of Sex Offender Incarceration. Sexual Abuse, p.10790632221078305.
Lipnicky A, Kelly P, Ramaswamy M. 2022. Social Resources, Abortion, and Contraceptive Use Among
Women With Criminal Justice Histories. Journal of Correctional Health Care. Mar 28.
Ma L. 2022. The Effects of Family Structure Stability and Parenting Practices on Juvenile Delinquency:
Variations by Immigrant Generational Status and Race/Ethnicity (Doctoral dissertation, University of
New Haven).
McElhattan D. 2022. The Proliferation of Criminal Background Check Laws in the United States.
American Journal of Sociology. Jan 1;127(4):1037-93.
Michaud A, Guler B. 2022. Dynamics of Deterrence: A Macroeconomic Perspective on Punitive Justice
Policy. The Center for Growth and Opportunity.
Morel BI. 2022. Wrongful Conviction Compensation in the United States.
Ditalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu.
Moore TS. 2022. Critical Junctures and Path Dependence in Sentencing Policy: A Case Study 1. In
Sociological Forum.
Robinson LV. 2022. A Look at Opportunities Within Correctional Facilities in Preparation of Ex-Convicts
Attaining Employment: A Qualitative Case Study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Seeds C. 2022. Death by Prison: The Emergence of Life without Parole and Perpetual Confinement. Univ
of California Press.
Shaffer H. 2022. The Law and Economics of Prosecutorial Discretion (Doctoral dissertation).
Smith M, Glidden MD. 2022. COVID-19 in prisons: State health care contracting and the pandemic
behind bars. Journal of Correctional Health Care. 23, (3), 1-8.
Spelman W. 2022. Why birth cohorts commit crime at different rates. Social Science Research. Feb
1;102:102628.
Tadros E, Vlach A. 2022. Conflictual couples: The impact of dyadic adjustment and depressive symptoms
on conflict in incarcerated couples. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, pp.119.

19

Appendix 4:
Substantive comments received by BJS in response to the Federal
Register Notifications of OMB review of the National Prisoner
Statistics collection

20

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Charlie Sullivan
Carson, Elizabeth (OJP)
[EXTERNAL] Please include in National Prisoner Statistics
Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:44:21 AM

   E. Ann Carson, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street

NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email: elizabeth.carson@usdoj.gov; telephone:
202-616-3496),
    Dear Ms. Carson, as I have requested over the years, I respectfully urge that
you include those persons in the upcoming National Prisoner Statistics who
have been civilly committed for a sex offense after a prison sentence.
    We are talking about 6,000 people.
Sincerely,

Charles Sullivan
President
International CURE
Washington, DC 

21

November 10, 2022
Director Alexis R. Piquero. Ph.D.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Department of Justice
Attention: OMB Number 1121-0102
RE: Public Comments on the National Prisoner Statistics Survey
The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) is pleased to respond to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ request for
public comments regarding the National Prisoner Statistics Survey. Pew is a non-profit research and
policy organization with several initiatives that help states advance fiscally sound, data‐driven policies
and practices in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
The National Prisoner Statistics Survey is vital for an understanding of both current and trends in prison
population, admissions and releases, and provides invaluable information for policymakers at all levels of
government, as well as other justice system stakeholders.
We would like to recommend a few changes to the survey instrument that we believe will provide a
meaningful benefit in terms of improving the quality of data that is collected, and subsequently the ability
of policymakers and others to analyze who is in prison, for how long and why.
1. Asking for information by both race/ethnicity and sex together for more data points.
Section I, question six of the draft 2022 instrument asks for a year-end count of inmates by race
and ethnicity as well as sex: that is, there are columns for Male and Female, and rows for White
non-Hispanic, Black or African American non-Hispanic, etc. Currently no information on race or
ethnicity is collected for any other data points. We would like to see BJS use the question 6
format for all the questions in Section I and Section II. If policymakers have the individual level
data available to answer question 6, it should not be burdensome to pull this data for admissions,
releases, private, public, and local facilities, etc.
2. Changing categorization of admissions. Question 7 does not well document who is admitted to
prison from community supervision. It is difficult to line up this information with that provided
by the Annual Survey of Probation, for example. We suggest the following structure:
a. New court commitments (new sentence):
1) From probation
2) From discretionary parole
3) From mandatory post-release supervision (not parole)
4) From another form of supervision not included above
5) Not on any form of community supervision at time of admission
b. Supervision violations (with no new sentence):
1) From probation
2) From discretionary parole
3) From mandatory post-release supervision (not parole)

22

4) From another form of supervision not included above
3. Language. Using labels like “inmates” rather than “people” is unnecessary if the sentence clearly
indicates the person is in custody. For example, question 3 reads, “On December 31, 2022, how
many inmates under your jurisdiction were housed in a privately operated correctional facility…”
We would suggest examining the language throughout to identify where the instrument could
remove labeling terms such as “inmate” or “violator” and use “person” or “people,” which is less
stigmatizing.
Thank you again to BJS for the opportunity to provide input and for your continued dedication to
this issue. Please contact Joshua Alvarez (jalvarez@pewtrusts.org) in our Government Relations
office for additional information or questions.
Sincerely,

Tracy Velázquez
Senior Manager
Safety & Justice
The Pew Charitable Trusts

23

November 18, 2022
E. Ann Carson, Statistician
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Re: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of
a Currently Approved Collection: National Prisoner Statistics Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 57,221, Docket
OMB-1121-0102
Dear Ms. Carson:
The Council on Criminal Justice appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’
sixty-day notice of an information collection request regarding the National Prisoner Statistics Program,
87 Fed. Reg. 57,221. 1
The Council is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization and think tank that serves as an
incubator of policy and leadership for the criminal justice field. Grounded in facts, evidence and
fundamental principles of justice, the Council advances understanding of the criminal justice policy
choices facing the nation and builds consensus for solutions that enhance safety and justice for all.
In August 2022, the Council launched a Veterans Justice Commission to examine the extent and nature of
veterans’ involvement in the criminal justice system and develop recommendations for research-based
policy changes. The Commission is chaired by former U.S. Defense Secretary and U.S. Senator Chuck
Hagel and includes former defense secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, as well as 13
other leaders representing veterans, the military, the Veterans Administration, community advocates, and
various sectors of the justice system.
In order to fulfill its evidence-based mission, the Council relies in meaningful part on data collected by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The information the Bureau proposes to collect over the coming three years
will therefore have significant “practical utility,” see 87 Fed. Reg. at 57,221, not only for BJS itself, but also
for the Council and other organizations that rely on accurate data to inform their policy analysis and
recommendations. The Council therefore strongly supports the proposed information collection.
The Council submits, however, that “the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can
be enhanced” by collecting information about the number of veterans incarcerated in each state and the
federal Bureau of Prisons. See id. As the Council’s Veteran Justice Commission stated in its preliminary
assessment of the unique challenges facing veterans in the civilian justice system—a report attached to
1

This comment was prepared with the assistance of Jessica Morton of the Democracy Forward Foundation.

24

this comment 2—veterans may be overrepresented among people held in prison and jail, but there is a
dearth of reliable data identifying veterans within these systems. Collecting this data would add
meaningfully to the information collection and would constitute only a minimal burden.
Veterans comprise a significant portion of state and federal prisoners. According to the last
comprehensive Bureau of Justice Statistics count—now a decade out of date—there were 181,500 selfreported veterans in American prisons and jails as of 2012 3; another survey from 2016, also based on
self-reporting, found that nearly 8% of people incarcerated in state prisons and more than 5% of people
incarcerated in federal prisons were veterans. 4 All told, nearly one third of all veterans self-report having
been arrested and booked into jail at least once, compared to fewer than one fifth of non-veterans. 5
Veterans face unique challenges that may increase their risk of involvement in the criminal justice
system—and create additional hurdles within the system and upon reentry. As described in more detail in
the attached report, combat deployment, which has been more common among veterans who served
after September 11, 2001, is strongly associated with the development of post-traumatic stress disorder
and traumatic brain injury. Both of these medical conditions can fuel substance misuse and increase the
risk of separation from the military under “other than honorable” circumstances, and are associated with
crime and justice involvement for veterans. One study has shown that 87% of veterans incarcerated in
jails had experienced a traumatic event in their lifetimes, and 39% screened positive for PTSD 6 (compared
to a 6% PTSD prevalence rate in the non-veteran population). 7 Veterans also are more likely than nonveterans to have had “adverse childhood experiences,” such as suffering or witnessing interpersonal

2

The report, entitled “From Service through Reentry: A Preliminary Assessment of Veterans in the Criminal Justice System,” is
publicly available at: https://counciloncj.org/veterans-justice-commission/.

3

Jennifer Bronson et al., Veterans in Prison and Jail, 2011–12, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Dec. 2015),
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf.

4

Laura M. Maruschak et al., Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016: Veterans in Prison, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Mar. 2021),
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf.

5

Christine Timko et al., Systematic Review of Criminal and Legal Involvement After Substance Use and Mental Health Treatment
Among Veterans: Building Toward Needed Research, 14 Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment 1 (2020),
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1178221819901281.

6

Andrew J. Saxon et al., Trauma, Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Associated Problems Among Incarcerated Veterans,
52 Psychiatric Services 959 (2001), https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.52.7.959.

7

Rise B. Goldstein et al., The epidemiology of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States: results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, 51 Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 1137 (2016),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-016-1208-5.

25

violence, or family instability factors. 8 And incarcerated veterans have been found to have five times the
rate of past homelessness as adult men in the general population. 9
Veterans likewise face unique challenges within the criminal justice system itself. For veterans who
struggle with PTSD or other trauma symptoms, many aspects of incarceration can resemble deployment
to a combat zone, leading combat veterans to adopt the “survival mode” characteristics of those
operations. 10 Although the VA, local governments, and community organizations have developed multiple
initiatives to assist veterans, their availability to all veterans seeking services is unknown. And even where
these interventions exist, there is some evidence that many veterans who would be candidates for
participation are not identified due to their reluctance to disclose their veteran status. For other
programs, participation is hampered by limited veterans’ awareness of their existence or perceptions that
they may not be eligible.
The first step to providing veterans with the support needed for successful reentry is identifying both the
aggregate number of veterans in any jail or prison system and the individual veterans who would benefit
from that support. This data is necessary to implement any programming effectively, to ensure that the
scope of any programming meets the needs of a veteran population, and to contact specific veterans who
may not be aware of the resources available to them. Unfortunately, at this time there is no
comprehensive data collection or reporting of veteran populations in jails and prisons. The data that is
available comes from sporadic studies using samples of the incarcerated population or snapshots in time
without detailed trend data; most states do not track or publish veteran-specific information. Although
some jails and prisons may have policies asking veterans to self-report their status, it is unknown how
many collect data in this way. In any event, expecting veterans to self-report their status is problematic:
some veterans have reported reluctance about self-identification because of shame, fear that they will be
viewed as a threat, or concerns that they may lose their VA benefits. 11
In 2013, the VA created the Veterans Reentry Search Services (VRSS) system, a web-based tool that
allows correctional facilities to identify justice-involved people with prior military service. 12 Given the
8

John R. Blosnich et al., Disparities in Adverse Childhood Experience Among Individuals With a History of Military Service, 71 JAMA
Psychiatry 1041 (2014), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1890091; see also Jodie G. Katon et al.,
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Military Service, and Adult Health, 49 American Journal of Preventative Medicine 573 (2015),
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00142-7/fulltext.

9

Jack Tsai et al., Homelessness in a National Sample of Incarcerated Veterans in State and Federal Prisons, 41 Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 360 (2014), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488013-0483-7.

10

Chester E. Sigafoos, A PTSD Treatment Program for Combat (Vietnam) Veterans in Prison, 38 International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology 117 (1994), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306624X9403800204.

11

William B. Brown et al., The Perfect Storm: Veterans, culture and the criminal justice system, 10 Justice Policy Journal 1, 7–8
(2013), http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/brown_et_al_fall_2013.pdf; see also Eileen M. Ahlin & Anne S. Douds, If
You Build It, Will Vets Come? An Identity Theory Approach to Expanding Veterans’ Treatment Court Participation, 45 Criminal Justice
Review 319 (2020), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0734016820914075.

12

David Pelletier, Dispatch from the Front Lines, Justice for Vets (Apr. 2022), https://justiceforvets.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/Identifying-the-Veteran-Population-Within-the-CJS-2022.pdf.

26

accessibility of VRSS, requiring jails and prisons to report the number of veterans in their facility would
add only a minimal burden to this information collection. To use VRSS, a correctional facility need only
provide basic information (such as name, social security number, and facility location) to the VA, which
will then provide the ID numbers of individuals with a record of military service. 13 VRSS can also accept
large batch files of queries. 14
Although VRSS provides a simple and effective way for correctional facilities to identify the veterans
among their populations, it is little-used: in 2021, only 11% of the nation's approximately 3,100 local jails
used VRSS. 15 Including statistics related to veterans in the BJS data collection will therefore have the dual
effect of developing meaningful data that can be used to support wraparound programming and alerting
jails and prisons to the straightforward tools available to identify people who have served their country in
the armed forces.
*

*

*

On behalf of the Council’s Veterans Justice Commission, I commend the Bureau of Justice Statistics for its
attention to these critical issues and strongly encourage the Bureau to include a reporting requirement for
veteran status in the upcoming data collection. I am happy to discuss this with you further and may be
contacted at agelb@counciloncj.org at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments.
Respectfully submitted,

Adam Gelb
President & CEO
Council on Criminal Justice

13

U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Welcome to the Veterans Re-Entry Search Services (Sept. 1, 2010), https://vrss.va.gov/.

14

See Pelletier, supra n. 12.

15

S.C. Clark, National Director, Veterans Justice Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, personal communication (July 20,
2022).

27

28

ABOUT THE COUNCIL
The Council on Criminal Justice is an invitational membership organization and think tank.
Independent and nonpartisan, the Council works to advance understanding of the
criminal justice policy choices facing the nation and build consensus for solutions that
enhance safety and justice for all.
The Council does not take policy positions. As part of its array of activities, the Council
conducts research and convenes task forces composed of Council members who produce
reports with findings and policy recommendations on matters of concern. For more
information about the Council, visit counciloncj.org.

ABOUT THE PROJECT
The Veterans Justice Commission is a multi-year research, policy development, and
communications project that will document and raise awareness of the unique challenges
facing veterans in the civilian justice system and build consensus for evidence-based
reforms that enhance safety, health, and justice. The project spans the full scope of the
justice system—from arrest and diversion through prosecution, incarceration, release, and
community supervision—with a particular focus on veterans’ transition from active
service to civilian life.
This report is a preliminary assessment to ground the Commission's work, which will
further examine the challenges and develop proposed solutions for policy and practice.
The findings and conclusions in this report were not subject to the approval of the
Council’s Board of Directors or its Board of Trustees.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for the Veterans Justice Commission comes from The Arthur M. Blank Family
Foundation, the National Football League, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, T. Denny
Sanford, Southern Company Foundation, and the Wilf Family Foundations as well as the
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, #StartSmall, and other CCJ general
operating contributors.
We thank the numerous collaborators who made this preliminary analysis possible: Jim
Seward, Hannah Bolotin, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Adam Gelb, Andrea Finlay, Stephanie
Kennedy, David MacEwen, Olivia McLarnan, Lumen Mulligan, Andrew Page, Barbara
Pierce, Evan Seamone, Wesley Smith, and Jenifer Warren.

2
29

Introduction
Military life is highly structured. Service members are told what to do and when to do it. They
are routinely thrust into stressful and often violent situations—circumstances that are hard for
most civilians to imagine—yet they are supported and surrounded by the training and
resources of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
The world following military service is quite different. Veterans must fend largely for
themselves in the civilian economy and society. Roughly 200,000 active-duty service
members leave the armed forces each year, and most transition successfully,
demonstrating often extraordinary resilience in the face of a wide array of risk factors and
obstacles. Others struggle—with mental health and substance use disorders, the
aftereffects of traumatic brain injury, homelessness, and criminality.
Approximately one third of veterans self-report having been arrested and booked into jail
at least once, compared to fewer than one fifth of civilians.1 According to the last
comprehensive count, there were 181,500 veterans in American prisons and jails.2 A
separate survey showed that nearly 8% of those incarcerated in state prisons and more
than 5% of people in federal prisons were veterans.3 There are more veterans imprisoned
in the U.S. than there are total prisoners in all but 14 other countries,4 but their numbers
represent a tiny fraction of the total U.S. veteran population-just 1%.
In recent years, innovations such as veterans treatment courts and veteran-only housing
units in jails and prisons have emerged, seeking to improve support for former service
members through specialized approaches. The Veterans Administration (VA), whose
mission is to provide care and support for veterans and their families, has launched efforts
to help justice agencies better identify veterans and to facilitate their access to
programming. But many challenges-and opportunities-remain.
This document summarizes the current state of knowledge about veterans in the civilian
justice system. It highlights the service-related factors that increase risk for veterans’
justice system contact and reviews existing programs and services designed to address
that risk at three critical points in time: (1) the transition from active-duty military service
to civilian life; (2) arrest through criminal sentencing (the “front end” of the justice
system); and (3) incarceration through reentry into communities after release (the “back
end” of the system).
Overall, studies show that service-related trauma exposure, combined with increased
incidence of mental health and substance use disorders, elevates veterans’ risk of justice
system involvement. Veterans who served in the military since September 11, 2001 may
be especially at risk, in part because they are younger and more racially diverse than the
general public and they have seen more combat deployments-and redeployments-than
3
30

any previous cohort of service members. Combat deployment is strongly associated with
the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury
(TBI). Veterans with multiple deployments are three times more likely than service
members who were not previously deployed to develop PTSD, and estimates indicate that
20% of post-9/11 veterans experienced a probable TBI during deployment. PTSD and TBI
symptoms fuel substance misuse, increase risk for separation from the military under
“other than honorable” circumstances, and are associated with crime and justice
involvement for veterans.
Despite these findings, more research is needed to understand precisely how military
service and risk factors interact to increase veterans’ likelihood of contact with the
criminal justice system.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
+ Transition from military service to civilian life creates a range of difficulties for many veterans.
+ Research has identified what makes people more or less likely to engage in criminal behavior,
but the evidence on whether veterans have a different set of risk and protective factors is thin.
+ Deployment-related trauma exposure and increased incidence of mental health and substance
use disorders elevate veterans’ risk of making contact with the justice system.
+ Research has found robust associations between PTSD, traumatic brain injury, substance use
disorders, and both aggressive behavior and criminal justice system involvement for veterans.
+ Basic data on the nature and extent of veterans’ involvement in the justice system are lacking;
few justice agencies participate in VA systems that identify veterans.
+ A growing number of veterans are ineligible for VA benefits despite not having engaged in bad
conduct or criminal behavior during military service.
+ Veterans who lose VA benefits because of incarceration struggle to re-enroll at reentry,
increasing their risk of poor outcomes.
+ Most veterans in prison (69%) are serving time for violent crimes; nearly twice as many
veterans as non-veterans are serving life sentences.
+ Special in-prison housing units and other programs serving justice-involved veterans have
proliferated, but rigorous evaluation of these initiatives is lacking and their fidelity to evidencebased models is unknown.

4
31

VETERANS’ RISK FACTORS
More than 1.3 million personnel are on active duty across the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.5 Active-duty service members are relatively youngnearly two-thirds are under 30-and they are, overall, more racially diverse than the
general population.6 Nearly half (47%) of active-duty service members identify as persons
of color or biracial,7 compared to 40% of the general public.8 The majority are male, but
women’s engagement in active-duty service has grown steadily over the past 20 years,
reaching more than 17% in 2020.9 Though there is no exact count and sources differ in
their estimates, there were approximately 19 million military veterans in 2021,
encompassing those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and
other conflicts and postings over the past century.10
More than four million Americans have served in the military since the attacks on our
nation on September 11, 2001. Evidence suggests that post-9/11 veterans struggle more
with their transition to civilian life because of the particularly challenging nature of their
service.11 Roughly three-quarters of post-9/11 veterans were deployed at least once,
compared to 58% of veterans who served before them, and post-9/11 veterans are about
twice as likely as their pre-9/11 counterparts to have served in an active combat zone.
Research indicates that post-9/11 veterans (and other veterans drawn from the allvolunteer era) may have a higher risk of criminal justice system involvement when
compared to veterans of earlier service eras and to non-veterans,12 although this finding
is not consistent across studies.13
Scholars hypothesize that justice-involved veterans are likely to have higher rates of
combat deployment, adverse childhood experiences, post-traumatic stress14 and other
mental health issues, substance use, and homelessness. But the data underlying these
findings are largely drawn from 2004 or earlier, and results are mixed.15 Below is a review
of research on several key factors that may elevate the risk of criminal justice involvement
for veterans.
COMBAT-RELATED TRAUMA AND POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS
Once individuals join the military, they are at increased risk for experiencing a range of
traumatic events, including exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual
violence.16 Across a wide range of populations, experiences of trauma have been linked to
multiple symptoms, including aggression, impulsivity, hypervigilance, misappraisal of threat,
sensation seeking, fear, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors.17 Although
not all people who experience trauma have lasting negative effects or are diagnosed with
mental health or substance use disorders, approximately one third of pre-9/11 veterans and

5
32

half of post-9/11 veterans report that deployment negatively affected their physical and
mental health.18
As many as one third of veterans develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans with
multiple deployments are three times more likely than service members who were not
previously deployed to screen positive for PTSD.19 Other PTSD risk factors include younger
age, non-majority racial identity, female gender, enlisted rank, low educational attainment,
pre-deployment history of trauma or mental health disorder, and post-deployment social
support stressors20—factors prevalent among post-9/11 veterans. As of June 2021, 1.2 million
veterans were receiving compensation for service-connected PTSD.21

TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
The incidence and prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is elevated among military
personnel and veterans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define TBI as an
“injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain.”22 TBI is associated with memory loss,
altered mental state, temporary or permanent neurological deficits, decreased levels of
consciousness, and intracranial lesions.23 Although mild TBIs may not impair judgment or
decision-making, moderate and severe TBIs have more intensive and longer-lasting negative
consequences. Estimates indicate that approximately 20% of post-9/11 veterans-nearly one
million people-experienced a probable TBI during deployment,24 a figure that scholars say
may underreport actual prevalence.25 TBI increases the risk for a range of additional cognitive
impairment and mental health disorder diagnoses over time, from PTSD and anxiety disorders
to schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. These correlations are strongest for TBI and PTSD;
for affected veterans, having a TBI is correlated with a 44% increase in later PTSD diagnosis.26

SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS
Alcohol use disorders are the most prevalent type of substance use disorder among veterans, 27
although opioid use disorder diagnoses have increased over time.28 Studies show that 27% to
40% of post-9/11 veterans misuse alcohol.29 In 2020, 525,000 veterans were treated for
substance use disorders by the VA and more than 1.7 million received mental health care.30 In
a study of more than 450,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking first-time care from the
VA between 2001 and 2010, more than 11% received a substance use disorder diagnosis.31
Among this group, 10% of veterans were diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, 5% were
diagnosed with a drug use disorder, and 3% of veterans received both an alcohol and drug use

6
33

disorder diagnosis. Substance use is strongly correlated with a variety of mental health
disorder diagnoses. Veterans diagnosed with a substance use disorder were three to 4.5 times
more likely to also be diagnosed with PTSD or depression. PTSD symptoms, specifically,
increase risk for the development of substance use disorders among veterans.32 Veterans with
PTSD are more than twice as likely to report struggles with substance use or dependency
(41%) compared to veterans without PTSD (20%).33 Military-specific risk factors for substance
use disorders include deployment, combat exposure, and challenges with the transition to
civilian life.34

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) include experiences of direct and witnessed
interpersonal violence as well as family instability factors, such as having a parent with a
mental health or substance use disorder.35 The number of ACEs experienced by individuals has
been associated with a range of negative outcomes, including increased incidence and
prevalence of chronic physical health conditions, cancer, mental health and substance use
disorders, and early death.36 Research indicates that military veterans experience ACEs at
higher rates than their non-veteran peers. Some research also shows, however, that for some
individuals, military enlistment may provide a vehicle enabling them to escape abusive home
environments.37 Compared to non-veterans, veterans report significantly higher exposure to
adverse events prior to their 18th birthday.38 In a study of more than 13,000 veterans and
88,000 civilians, female veterans reported an average of 2.2 ACEs, compared to 1.7 ACEs
among female civilians; male veterans reported an average of 1.7 ACEs compared to 1.3
among male civilians.39 Separate studies indicate that 59% of female veterans and 39% of
male veterans have experienced one or more ACE, with 5% of female veterans and 12% of
male veterans reporting four or more exposures.40

MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA
Service members may also experience military sexual trauma, defined as sexual abuse, assault,
or harassment that occurs during active-duty military service or training.41 A meta-analysis of
69 studies indicated that 16% of military service members (38% of women and 4% of men)
reported experiencing military sexual trauma.42 Specifically, nearly one third (31%) of service
members experienced harassment (53% of women and 9% of men) and 14% of service
members experienced assault (24% of women and 2% of men).43 People who experience
military sexual trauma are significantly more likely to screen positive for PTSD, depression,
anxiety, and substance use disorders when compared to other service members. Military

7
34

sexual trauma is associated with an increased risk for a range of mental health disorders,
including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders.44

HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING INSTABILITY
Military veterans are somewhat more likely than the general population to experience
homelessness. While veterans make up 6% of Americans, surveys show they account for more
than 7% of the homeless population.45 Recurring episodes of homelessness are common among
veterans. In a nationally representative survey of more than 1,500 veterans, 9% reported
experiencing homelessness at some point in their adult life.46 These individuals reported being
homeless for an average of nearly two cumulative years; only 17% reported having used VA
homeless or social services.

OVERLAPPING RISK FACTORS AND JUSTICE
SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT
Deployment-related trauma exposure, combined with increased incidence of mental
health and substance use disorders, elevate veterans’ risk of contact with the justice
system.47 Not every veteran who experiences trauma or PTSD engages in criminal
behavior. But those who do are more likely to have several risk factors that pre-dated
their military service, as well as other risk factors acquired during service.48 Post-9/11
veterans may be particularly at risk of criminal justice involvement. They are younger and
more likely to be members of a minority racial or ethnic group than previous cohorts of
veterans, which puts them at higher risk for arrest,49 and they have seen more combat
deployments and redeployments than any veteran cohort in our nation’s history.
Research demonstrates robust associations between PTSD, TBI, substance use disorders,
and both aggressive behavior and criminal justice system involvement for veterans.50
PTSD and TBI, in particular, have been linked with such involvement – and elevated risk of
rearrest.51 Among veterans incarcerated in jails, nearly nine in 10 (87%) had experienced a
traumatic event in their lifetimes and 39% screened positive for PTSD, compared to an
estimated PTSD prevalence rate of 6% among the civilian population.52 Among nearly 700
incarcerated veterans in Minnesota, the presence of TBI was associated with a 49%
higher risk of rearrest and 85% higher risk of supervised release revocation.53 Likewise,
the presence of PTSD was associated with 64% higher supervised release revocation.54
These findings align with a recent meta-analysis of 10 studies that found veterans with
PTSD had a 61% higher chance of criminal justice system involvement than veterans
without PTSD.55
8
35

Heightened exposure to trauma during military service and the development of
subsequent PTSD also increase risk for substance use disorders,56 engagement in intimate
partner violence57 and violent crime among veterans.58 For example, veterans with PTSD
have been found to perpetrate intimate partner violence at rates two to three times the
national average.59 Studies examining the role of PTSD and alcohol misuse among post9/11 veterans have found that combat exposure and increased PTSD symptom severity60
and the presence of both PTSD and alcohol misuse61 predict engagement in violence.
Specifically, in a study of nearly 1,400 post-9/11 veterans across the nation, 36% of
veterans with PTSD and alcohol use disorder engaged in severe violence compared to
11% of veterans with alcohol use disorder only, 10% of veterans with PTSD only, and 5%
of veterans who had neither PTSD nor alcohol use disorder.62

The Transition from Military to Civilian
Life
In military parlance, “transition” describes a veteran’s movement from service in the
armed forces to civilian society. This process occurs across several dimensions, including
medical, psychological, social, cultural, interpersonal, familial, professional, and financial.63
Seeking to improve the transition experience for veterans, the DoD requires that all
members participate in its Transition Assistance Program (TAP).64 TAP was established in
1991 and updated in 2011 and 2019 to meet the evolving needs of service members. TAP
includes an individualized transition plan, a career readiness assessment, engagement in a
career pathways program, on-the-job apprenticeships, and counseling. TAP is a
collaboration between three federal agencies—the Department of Labor, the VA, and the
DoD-with no single agency or individual responsible for its success. Partner agencies split
costs for the program. While an aggregate cost is not reported, in 2018 the DoD
estimated it spent $100 million on transition.65
Despite these services, a 2019 survey found that 45% of veterans reported feeling
inadequately prepared for the transition to civilian life.66 Nearly two-thirds of veterans
(61%) reported difficulty paying their bills following discharge, 42% said they have trouble
obtaining medical care for themselves or their families, and 41% reported challenges with
alcohol or drug misuse.67

TYPES OF MILITARY DISCHARGES
The military discharges a growing share of people without honorable-discharge status.
Generally speaking, the military discharges enlisted personnel with one of five
designations: honorable, general, other than honorable, bad conduct, and dishonorable.
Bad conduct and dishonorable discharges are punitive in nature and are assigned through
9
36

a military court martial, where service members retain legal representation. With other
than honorable discharges, however, commanders make the designation outside of a legal
process to regulate misconduct that has not led to a military-court conviction.
These three designations—dishonorable, bad conduct, and other than honorable
(formerly known as the “undesirable discharge”)—inflict a heavy penalty. Together, they
are commonly referred to as “bad paper” discharges. Bad-paper veterans are presumed,
pursuant to VA regulations, to have been discharged under dishonorable circumstances.68
As such, bad-paper veterans may lose access to all VA benefits and programs.
Applicants for VA benefits with bad paper have the right to challenge the regulatory
presumption, but only 10% do so; the large majority (87%) who appeal for access to
benefits are unsuccessful.69 This outcome may run counter to legislative intent, as
Congress apparently envisioned that all veterans, except those with dishonorable
discharges, would be entitled to undergo a thorough evaluation for VA benefit eligibility.70
These policies affect a growing share of veterans. Since World War II, the share of service
members who receive an other than honorable discharge has increased fivefold. More
ENLISTED SERVICE MEMBERS WITH BAD PAPER DISCHARGES

Source: The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services
Center of Harvard Law School, 2020.

10
37

than 6% of post-9/11 veterans receive such discharges annually,71 with significant
variation across the military branches. In 2011, the Marines discharged 10% of enlisted
personnel under other than honorable conditions, while the Air Force discharged fewer
than 1% under such circumstances.72 Overall, more than 548,000 service
members-representing about 7% of all characterized discharges-have received some
type of bad paper discharge since 1980.73
Overlapping Risk Factors and Other Than Honorable Discharges. Researchers have
identified multiple factors as potential drivers of the growth in other than honorable
discharges. The symptoms of mental health disorders, mission readiness concerns,
command culture, and discrimination based on race and sexual orientation are three such
explanations.74 Between World War II and the end of the “Don‘t Ask Don‘t Tell”75 policy in
2011, the military assigned more than 100,000 active-duty service members an other
than honorable discharge because of their actual or perceived LGBTQ status.76
Symptoms of both PTSD and TBI are strongly correlated with bad paper discharges.77
According to the Government Accountability Office, 62% of the nearly 92,000 service
members separated for misconduct between 2011 and 2015 had been diagnosed with
PTSD, TBI, or other conditions that could be associated with misconduct within the two
years prior to separation.78 One reason cited for this linkage is that military superiors may
assume that erratic behavior stemming from a mental health disorder represents a sign of
bad character.79 When a service member who commits misconduct has undiagnosed
PTSD, superiors may assign a bad paper discharge without understanding the origins of
the misbehavior.80 Common PTSD symptoms can cause behavior contrary to military
standards (e.g., failure to carry out duties, chronic tardiness, or failure to adhere to
policy).81 According to one study of more than 443,00 veterans who deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan and subsequently used VA services, 45% of those discharged for misconduct
were diagnosed with at least one mental health or substance use disorder, compared to
20% of those discharged under routine conditions.82 Specifically, a quarter of veterans
discharged for misconduct had PTSD, compared to 12% of those discharged under routine
conditions. Another study focused on deployed Marines found that those diagnosed with
PTSD were 11 times more likely to be discharged for misconduct and eight times more
likely to be discharged for substance misuse than Marines without a PTSD diagnosis.83
The result is that many service members with PTSD are denied the very VA medical and
mental health benefits intended to help them.

11
38

The Front End — Arrest through
Sentencing
It is unclear how many veterans make contact with law enforcement and enter the “front
end” of the criminal justice system. Information about how law enforcement, jails, and
courts identify veteran status from arrested individuals is incomplete. This makes it
difficult to know whether and how veterans are connected to available programs
designed to address their risk and needs-and, beyond that, how many receive such
support and whether these interventions are effective. Although national, cumulative
arrest data on veterans is not available, one study found that nearly one third of veterans
(31%) self-report that they had been arrested and booked one or more times in their lives,
a rate significantly higher than among civilians (18%).84

IDENTIFYING VETERANS AS THEY ENTER THE
SYSTEM
Identifying veterans as they come into contact with the criminal justice system is a critical
first step toward appropriately handling their cases in court and forging connections to
benefits and services. It is unknown how many of the roughly 18,000 law enforcement
agencies, 3,100 jails, and myriad federal, state, and local courts have policies requiring
staff to ask about veteran status, or how many rely on veterans to self-report their status.
Expecting veterans to self-report their status is problematic.85 Some justice-involved
veterans report reluctance about self-identification because of shame, fear that they will
be viewed as a threat, or concerns about losing VA benefits.86,87
In 2013, the VA created the Veterans Reentry Search Service (VRSS), a secure web-based
tool that allows correctional facilities and other criminal justice partners to identify
justice-involved people with prior military service.88 In 2015, the VA designed a second
search tool known as the Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES) to
identify veterans for homelessness assistance; it has since been extended to law
enforcement, which can use it to quickly access military service records for defendants or
incarcerated individuals.89 The use of these tools by criminal justice agencies, however,
remains uneven and sparse. In 2021, only 11% of the estimated 3,100 local jails used
VRSS, while 15 out of 18,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide (fewer than one
hundredth of one percent) used SQUARES.90 It is unclear why participation in the two
systems is so low and whether the use of these programs has been effective in the few
places they have been implemented.

12
39

DEFLECTION AND DIVERSION PROGRAMS
Most arrested veterans will spend some period of time in jail, where, as with other
subpopulations, programs tailored to their unique needs are rare. The VA, local
governments, and community organizations have developed multiple initiatives to assist
veterans who come in contact with the criminal justice system, including programs to
divert them away from incarceration. But information on their prevalence and research
on their effectiveness are limited. Three of the most common front-end approaches are
detailed below.
Veterans Response Teams. Some communities have created Veterans Response Teams
to help deflect veterans away from arrest during encounters with local law enforcement.
These teams include specialized officers trained to deescalate situations involving
veterans in crisis because of symptoms of PTSD, TBI, and other service-related injuries.
After a crisis is resolved, team members connect veterans with treatment and other
community resources as needed. Even where these interventions exist, however, there is
some evidence that many veterans who would be candidates for participation are not
identified due to their reluctance to disclose their veteran status. These individuals are
less likely to engage in healthcare and mental health and substance use disorder
treatment, which increases their risk for arrest and incarceration, the loss of VA benefits,
and homelessness.91
Veterans Justice Outreach. To divert veterans away from incarceration after they come
in contact with the criminal justice system, the VA in 2009 created the Veterans Justice
Outreach Program, whose specialists—primarily social workers at VA medical centers—
work with law enforcement, jails, and courts to identify justice-involved veterans and
facilitate access to VA services.92 Although the program served more than 138,000
veterans between 2016 and 2020, participation is hampered by limited awareness of its
existence among veterans, difficulties with identifying veterans in jail settings, and, for
veterans with bad paper discharges, a lack of awareness of their eligibility for certain VA
services. To date, research on program outcomes is limited, although legislation to
improve implementation and assess program effectiveness has been introduced.93
Veterans Treatment Courts. Veterans Treatment Courts are perhaps the most common
standardized front-end intervention that enables some veterans to avoid long-term
confinement and access supportive resources.94 Modeled after drug and mental health
courts,95 such courts serve veterans diagnosed with mental health and/or substance use
disorders, typically using a treatment team comprised of a judge, VA employees, and
veteran peer mentors.96 More than 600 Veterans Treatment Courts 97 and other veteranfocused courts operate across the nation.

13
40

Currently, Veterans Treatment Courts serve a narrow segment of the justice-involved
veteran population, with many courts placing restrictions on types of cases they will hear.
For example, a national survey of such courts found that 57% excluded at least one type of
violent felony charge and more than one-third (35%) excluded veterans who had been
dishonorably discharged from service.98 Further, Veterans Treatment Courts are
unevenly distributed across the nation, with some states running 20 or more courts and
others with four or fewer.99 Data on the number of veterans served by these courts are
not readily available.
The different protocols among Veterans Treatment Courts make it difficult to conduct
generalizable and rigorous research on outcomes.100 But one national study of nearly
8,000 participants across 115 VA sites found that at program exit, the number of veterans
in their own housing increased from 48% to 58% and the number of veterans receiving VA
benefits increased from 38% to 50%. Employment however, only increased by 1% - from
27% to 28%.101 Approximately one-fifth of program participants received jail sanctions
and 14% experienced a new incarceration during their time in the program. In another
study comparing Veterans Treatment Courts participants to non-participants, veterans in
the treatment court were more likely to have their own housing at program exit (67%)
than non-participants (41%) and more likely to be employed (33% compared to 16%).102

SENTENCING
Sentencing data for veterans is limited, particularly for those sentenced to probation or
those who receive a deferred prosecution. For those sentenced to incarceration, a higher
proportion of veterans (80%) than non-veterans (70%) receive sentences of five years or
more. 103 Additionally, a higher proportion of incarcerated veterans (24%) than nonveterans (13%) are serving life sentences.104
Some courts consider military service as a mitigating factor at sentencing, but this
consideration often is limited to those with honorable discharges.105 Similarly, some
deferred prosecution statutes allow veterans to avoid a conviction even after they plead
or are found guilty, if they can prove they suffer from an applicable condition stemming
from military service, such as PTSD, TBI, or other service-related trauma.106 This option
has only recently become available in a limited number of jurisdictions and the number
and rate of veterans’ deferred prosecutions are unknown.

14
41

The Back End — Corrections through
Reentry
Sentenced veterans enter the “back end” of the criminal justice system, where they face a
range of unique challenges during incarceration, at release, during their reentry into the
community, and, for those who release to probation or parole, during their post-release
community supervision.

INCARCERATION
More than 107,000 veterans were incarcerated in state and federal prisons in 2016, the
most recent year for which national prison data are available. Earlier estimates indicate
that in 2011-2012, roughly 131,500 veterans were incarcerated in prisons and 50,000
veterans were confined in jails.107 Veterans accounted for nearly 8% of those incarcerated
in state prisons and more than 5% of people in federal prisons.108 These levels
represented a 6% decrease in the number of veterans in prison since 2004, and a 25%
decrease in the number of veterans in jail.109 Despite that decline, in 2011-2012, more
veterans were held in U.S. prisons than total prisoners in all but 14 countries that, after
the globe-leading United States, have the largest total prison populations (China, Brazil,
India, Russian Federation, Turkey, Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, Philippines, South
Africa, Vietnam, Egypt, and Ethiopia).110 More veterans are incarcerated in the U.S than
total prisoners in the 208 countries for which prison population data is available.111
STUDIES OF INCARCERATED VETERANS SHOW THAT:
+ They are overwhelmingly male (98%) and are, on average, 51 to 52 years old.112 In contrast,
incarcerated non-veterans are, on average, 38 to 40 years old. Like the overall incarcerated
population, the age of veterans in prison has been rising steadily over the last 20 years.
+ Approximately half of incarcerated male veterans self-identify as White, one in four as Black,
one in 10 as Hispanic/Latino, and more than one in 10 as multiracial.113
+ More than two-thirds of veterans in prison (69%) were convicted of violent crimes, compared to
57% of non-veterans. Of those, the share serving time for non-sexual violent crimes (43%) is
similar to that for the non-veteran population. The share of veterans in prison for violent sexual
offenses (26%) is more than double that for non-veterans.114
+ The majority of incarcerated veterans were discharged under honorable conditions, but about
18% of those in prison and jail received a bad paper discharge.115 As noted previously, the

15
42

share of veterans with bad paper discharges has reached a high of 6%, meaning that veterans
with such discharges are highly overrepresented in prison.116
For veterans struggling with PTSD or other trauma symptoms, many aspects of
incarceration can resemble deployment to a combat zone, and mental health providers
observe that incarcerated combat veterans often adopt the “survival mode”
characteristics of those engaged in combat operations.117 While the nationwide
prevalence of TBI among incarcerated veterans is not known, one study analyzing
Washington State Department of Corrections data found that veterans who self-report
TBI have increased use of in-prison medical services, higher rates of violent in-prison
misconduct, and an increased likelihood of experiencing solitary confinement.118
Critical gaps remain in what is known about the population of incarcerated veterans. The
data above come from sporadic studies using samples of the inmate population or
snapshots in time without detailed trend data. Most states do not track or publish
veteran-specific information. The absence of comprehensive and current data on the
number of veterans in jails and prisons complicates efforts to understand and address
their risks and needs.

IN-PRISON PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR VETERANS
Some jails and prisons have established targeted programming and specialized housing
units for veterans.
Veterans Housing Units. States and counties designed these units to create a supportive
environment for incarcerated veterans and facilitate the delivery of tailored programs.119
As of 2022, there were veteran-only housing units operating in 46 county jails, 74 state
prisons, and three federal prisons across 33 states.120 Trained staff typically operate the
units, and incarcerated veterans assist and serve as peer mentors.
Although the use of veteran-only housing units appears to be a promising step, such units
offer vary widely, making their appeal to veterans and overall effectiveness difficult to
evaluate. For example, in a veteran-only housing unit in Connecticut, more than half (56%)
of incarcerated veterans said the unit made them feel safer, but fewer than a third (31%)
said the specialized environment had helped them receive mental health treatment.121 An
evaluation of a veteran-only housing unit developed jointly by the San Diego County
Sheriff’s Department and local VA administrators reported that unit residents had
“significantly fewer custodial infractions” and were “significantly less likely to be
convicted for a new offense at 12-months post-release” when compared to a historical
group of incarcerated veterans who did not live in the unit.122 Overall, however, research
on the rehabilitative impact of the veteran-only housing model is thin.123
16
43

Veteran-Specific Programming. Little is known about the scope and effectiveness of
veteran-specific programs delivered during custody, whether in veteran-only housing
units or to veterans in the general prison population. Programs vary widely in the range of
services they offer, and very few programs have been evaluated for effectiveness. Some
programs partner with the VA to help incarcerated veterans apply for benefits prior to
release;124 others focus on incarcerated women veterans,125 provide education, or offer
individual and group therapy and treatment for mental health and substance use
disorders. Still others engage incarcerated veterans through peer support networks.
Veterans eligible for VA-funded health services are disconnected from such benefits
during incarceration.126 Thus, absent their participation in veteran-specific programs,
they typically receive the general services provided by the correctional facility. These
services may or may not be tailored to meet the specific risks and needs of veterans, as is
the case for other incarcerated subpopulations. Specifically, even prison programming
that includes a focus on trauma may not address veterans’ unique challenges related to
combat, military sexual trauma-related PTSD, or the aftereffects of TBI.127 Given that,
veteran-specific behavioral health conditions may not be effectively addressed during
incarceration, creating additional challenges for veterans as they leave prison and return
home.

REENTRY CHALLENGES
People leaving prison are at high risk for death during reentry.128 One study found that in
the first two weeks following release, formerly incarcerated individuals are nearly 13
times more likely than other state residents to die.129 The highest risk for death is from
substance use disorders; individuals reentering from prison are 129 times more likely
than the general population to die from a drug overdose.130 Other causes include
cardiovascular disease, homicide, and suicide.
When adjusted for demographic factors, the post-incarceration mortality risk for veterans
is not significantly higher than that of non-veterans.131 A study of Washington State
Department of Corrections data concluded that VA benefits may reduce the likelihood of
mortality during reentry by all causes.132
Elevated prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders has been well
documented among the general population of Americans under probation or parole
supervision,133 but less is known about the post-release veteran population. High rates of
mental health and substance use disorders among incarcerated veterans134 and
insufficient treatment capacity for affected individuals during custody135 suggest that
many veterans may experience behavioral health issues during the reentry period. Among
veterans who connected with a post-release VA outreach program, 57% were diagnosed
with a mental health disorder and half (47%) were diagnosed with a substance use
17
44

disorder.136 About one third (35%) were diagnosed with co-occurring mental health and
substance use disorders.
MENTAL HEALTH & SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS
Among over 18,000 veterans who connected with a post-release VA program, 69% were
diagnosed with at least one mental health or substance use disorder.

Source: Finlay, 2017.

Employment is one of the most well-documented barriers to successful reentry for
individuals leaving prison.137 Formerly incarcerated people have an unemployment rate of
over 27%,138 and approximately one third of reentering individuals do not obtain work
within four years of their release.139 While employment rates for previously incarcerated
veterans are not readily available, factors such as substance use and longer incarceration
episodes are correlated with a decreased likelihood of securing a job interview among
veterans.140 Still, given their service background, veterans enter the civilian job market
with what would appear to be advantages in terms a range of skills, experiences, and
training.
Unemployment exacerbates another challenge facing veterans reentering
society-housing instability. In a national sample of veterans connected to a VA outreach
program, 30% were identified as having experienced homelessness within the past three
years, a rate five times that for men in the general population.141 People who are
unemployed and unhoused are at greater risk for criminality.142

18
45

REENTRY SUPPORT
Several federal, state, and local programs have been launched to help veterans transition
from incarceration to the community. The VA’s Veterans Justice Program partners with
criminal justice agencies to identify reentering veterans and link them to VA and
community services.143 The Health Care for Reentry Veterans program, created by the VA
in 2007, is the primary vehicle aiding veterans in prison, though Veterans Justice
Outreach program specialists may also assist veterans during their reentry transition.
The Health Care for Reentry Veterans program provides targeted outreach to
incarcerated veterans at 81% of state and federal correctional facilities across all 50
states and links them to healthcare treatment and other transition resources.144 By
identifying incarcerated veterans and connecting them with such services, the program
aims to facilitate readjustment to community life and reduce homelessness and
recidivism.145 One study examined post-release outcomes for more than 31,000 veterans
who received at least one “outreach visit” from the program while in prison. Results
indicate that 56% of veterans leaving prison had contact with the VA health care system
within a year of their outreach visits. Among veterans who received an outreach visit, 52%
with a mental health diagnosis and 39% with a substance use disorder engaged in VAfunded treatment one year after their diagnosis.146 Though other outreach results have
not been evaluated, research shows that sustained treatment for mental health and
substance use disorders among veterans with criminal justice contact is associated with
better long-term criminal justice outcomes.147
Once released from incarceration, most people are placed under supervision in the
community by parole officers. In 2020, more than 3.8 million individuals-or 1 in 66 U.S.
adult residents-were under some form of post-release supervision, a significant decline
from the peak of 1 in 45 adults in 2008.148 Due to data gaps, it is unclear how many
veterans might be under probation or parole supervision after they leave incarceration
and return home. One nationally representative study indicated that 2% of veterans were
on probation and fewer than 1% were on parole, supervised release, or other conditional
release after prison.149
Although rates of reincarceration are well documented for individuals leaving
incarceration more broadly, national analyses of recidivism among veterans have not
been conducted. Descriptive research on incarcerated male veterans, however, indicates
that in 2016, 55% to 65% of that population had experienced at least one prior
incarceration and an average of two to three previous incarcerations.150

19
46

Conclusion and Next Steps
This report is a preliminary assessment of the current evidence about American veterans’
interactions with the civilian criminal justice system across four categories: risk factors,
transition from service, and the so-called front and back ends of the justice system. From
that vantage point, this document showed that veterans, and especially post-9/11
veterans, face unique risk factors for criminal justice involvement, ranging from multiple
combat deployments to high PTSD rates and housing insecurity. For the 200,000 people
who annually transition out of the military, the exit programs that await them often fail to
meet expectations. In addition, increasing numbers of service members are leaving the
armed forces with other than honorable discharges, which in almost all cases bar VA
benefits.
At the front end of the criminal justice system, veterans are far more likely to be arrested
and booked than civilians, yet they are under-identified and receive widely varying
treatment in deflections and diversions from prosecution and at sentencing. At the back
end, there is continued under-identification of veterans, high rates of PTSD and TBI,
disparate in-prison programming, and multiple impediments to successful reentry.
This initial assessment is intended to inform the deliberations of CCJ’s Veterans Justice
Commission, which held its first meeting on August 18, 2022. Former U.S. Defense
Secretary and U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel chairs the Commission, which also includes
former U.S. Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and 13 other
leaders in science, the judiciary, the recovery field, healthcare, corrections, law
enforcement, veterans affairs, and the military. The Commission’s charge is to study the
challenges facing veterans and develop evidence-based, nonpartisan solutions that
reduce veteran involvement in the criminal justice system and enhance safety, health, and
justice.

20
47

References
1

Snowden, D. L., Oh, S., Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., & King, E. (2017). Military service and crime: New evidence. Social Psychiatry
& Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(5), 605-615. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1342-8; Timko, C., Nash, A., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., &
Finlay, A. K. (2020). Systematic review of criminal and legal involvement after substance use and mental health treatment among
veterans: Building toward needed research. Substance Abuse: Research & Treatment, 14, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221819901281
2
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
3
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf
4
World Prison Brief. (n.d.). Highest to lowest: Prison population total. https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prisonpopulation-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All
5
Lange, K. (2021). Gender relations surveys now allow all troops to give input. U.S. Department of
Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2865979/gender-relations-surveys-now-allow-all-troops-togive-input/#:~:text=C[…]20admiral; Council on Foreign Relations. (2020). Demographics of the U.S.
military. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
6
United States Department of Defense. (2021). 2020 Demographics Profile of the Military Community.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographics-report.pdf
7
Frey, W.H. (2020). The nation is diversifying even faster than predicted, according to new census data. Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-census-data-shows-the-nation-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/
8
United States Department of Defense. (2021). 2020 Demographics Profile of the Military Community.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographics-report.pdf.; US Coast Guard. (n.d.). Workforce.
https://www.uscg.mil/About/Workforce/
9
United States Department of Defense. (2021). 2020 Demographics Profile of the Military Community.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographics-report.pdf.; US Coast Guard. (n.d.). Workforce.
https://www.uscg.mil/About/Workforce/
10
Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/05/the-changing-face-of-americas-veteran-population/
11
Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience and the post-9/11 generation. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteran-experience-and-the-post-9-11generation/
12
Culp, R., Youstin, T. J., Englander, K., & Lynch, J. (2013). From war to prison: Examining the relationship between military service and
criminal activity. Justice Quarterly, 30(4), 651-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.615755
13
Blonigen, D. M., King, C. M., & Timko, C. (2019). Criminal justice involvement among veterans. In Intersections between mental health
and law among veterans (pp. 13-43). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/ 0.1007/978-3-030-31664-8_2
14
In this document, we use “PTSD” to refer both to post-traumatic stress (“PTS”) and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). This is in
line with the George W. Bush Presidential Center’s approach, acknowledging that “experiencing some level of post-traumatic stress
(PTS) after a traumatic event can be expected, and “PTS is an injury” suffered while in service. Kelly, K. (2018, July 29), Changing the
dialogue of PTS. George W. Bush Presidential Center. https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/articles/2018/06/pts-changing-thedialogue.html; Fischer, H. (2015). A guide to U.S. military causality statistics: Operation freedom’s sentinel, operation inherent resolve,
operation new dawn, operation iraqi freedom, & operation enduring freedom. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf; Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience
and the post-9/11 generation. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteranexperience-and-the-post-9-11-generation/
15
Brooke, E. J., & Gau, J. M. (2018). Military service and lifetime arrests: Examining the effects of the total military experience on
arrests in a sample of prison inmates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415619007; Culp,
R., Youstin, T. J., Englander, K., & Lynch, J. (2013). From war to prison: Examining the relationship between military service and criminal
activity. Justice Quarterly, 30(4), 651-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.615755
16
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
17
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
18
Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience and the post-9/11 generation. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteran-experience-and-the-post-9-11generation/
19
Kline, A., Falca-Dodson, M., Sussner, B., Ciccone, D. S., Chandler, H., Callahan, L., & Losonczy, M. (2010). Effects of repeated
deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan on the health of New Jersey Army National Guard troops: Implications for military
readiness. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.162925
20
Wall, P.L. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury in current military populations: a critical analysis. Journal of
the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 18(5), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390312460578; Peterson, A. L., Luethcke, C.
A., Borah, E. V., Borah, A. M., & Young-McCaughan, S. (2011). Assessment and treatment of combat-related PTSD in returning war
veterans. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 18(2), 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-011-9238-3
21
National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (2021). VA benefits & health care utilization. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/pocketcards/fy2021q4.pdf
22
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Report read to congress on traumatic brain injury in the United States:
Epidemiology and rehabilitation, p.2. https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/tbi_report_to_congress_epi_and_rehab-a.pdf

21
48

23

Wall, P. L. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury in current military populations: a critical analysis. Journal of
the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 18(5), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390312460578 .
24
Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. (Eds.). (2008). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to
assist recovery (Vol. 1). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG720.html
25
Waszak, D. L., & Holmes, A. M. (2017). The unique health needs of post-9/11 US veterans. Workplace Health & Safety, 65(9), 430444.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2165079916682524
26
Hoge, C. W., McGurk, D., Thomas, J. L., Cox, A. L., Engel, C. C., & Castro, C. A. (2008). Mild traumatic brain injury in US soldiers
returning from Iraq. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(5), 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa072972; Maguen, S., Lau, K. M.,
Madden, E., & Seal, K. (2012). Relationship of screen-based symptoms for mild traumatic brain injury and mental health problems in
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans: Distinct or overlapping symptoms. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 49(7), 1115-1126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2011.02.0015
27
Hoggatt, K. J., Lehavot, K., Krenek, M., Schweizer, C. A., & Simpson, T. (2017). Prevalence of substance misuse among US veterans in
the general population. The American Journal on Addictions, 26(4), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12534; Seal, K. H., Cohen, G.,
Waldrop, A., Cohen, B. E., Maguen, S., & Ren, L. (2011). Substance use disorders in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in VA healthcare,
2001–2010: Implications for screening, diagnosis and treatment. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 116(1-3), 93-101.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publichealthresources/198
28
Bray, R.M., Hourani, L.L., Rae Olmstead, K.L., Witt, M., Brown, J.M., Pemberton, M.R., …Hayden, D. (2009). Department of defense
survey of health related behaviors among active duty military personnel: A component of the defense lifestyle assessment program (DLAP).
Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
29
Grossbard, J. R., Hawkins, E. J., Lapham, G. T., Williams, E. C., Rubinsky, A. D., Simpson, T. L., ... & Bradley, K. A. (2013). Follow-up care
for alcohol misuse among OEF/OIF veterans with and without alcohol use disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 45(5), 409-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.04.007; Burnett-Zeigler, I., Ilgen, M., Valenstein, M.,
Zivin, K., Gorman, L., Blow, A., ... & Chermack, S. (2011). Prevalence and correlates of alcohol misuse among returning Afghanistan and
Iraq veterans. Addictive Behaviors, 36(8), 801-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.12.032; Hawkins, E. J., Lapham, G. T.,
Kivlahan, D. R., & Bradley, K. A. (2010). Recognition and management of alcohol misuse in OEF/OIF and other veterans in the VA: A
cross-sectional study. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 109(1-3), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.025; Calhoun, P.
S., Elter, J. R., Jones, E. R., Kudler, H., & Straits-Tröster, K. (2008). Hazardous alcohol use and receipt of risk-reduction counseling among
US veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(11), 8110. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v69n1103;
Erbes, C., Westermeyer, J., Engdahl, B., & Johnsen, E. (2007). Post-traumatic stress disorder and service utilization in a sample of
service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. Military Medicine, 172(4), 359-363.https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed.172.4.359
30
Department of Veterans Affairs. (2022). Volume II, medical programs and information technology programs, congressional submission, FY
2022 budget submission. https://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
31
Seal, K. H., Cohen, G., Waldrop, A., Cohen, B. E., Maguen, S., & Ren, L. (2011). Substance use disorders in Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans in VA healthcare, 2001–2010: Implications for screening, diagnosis and treatment. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 116(1-3), 93101. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publichealthresources/198
32
Blodgett, J. C., Avoundjian, T., Finlay, A. K., Rosenthal, J., Asch, S. M., Maisel, N. C., & Midboe, A. M. (2015). Prevalence of mental
health disorders among justice-involved veterans. Epidemiologic Reviews, 37(1), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxu003;
Jeffirs, S. M., Jarnecke, A. M., Flanagan, J. C., Killeen, T. K., Laffey, T. F., & Back, S. E. (2019). Veterans with PTSD and comorbid substance
use disorders: Does single versus poly-substance use disorder affect treatment outcomes? Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 199, 70–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.001; Teeters, J. B., Lancaster, C. L., Brown, D. G., & Back, S. E. (2017). Substance use
disorders in military veterans: Prevalence and treatment challenges. Substance Abuse & Rehabilitation, 8, 69-77.
https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S116720
33
Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience and the post-9/11 generation. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteran-experience-and-the-post-9-11generation/
34
Teeters, J. B., Lancaster, C. L., Brown, D. G., & Back, S. E. (2017). Substance use disorders in military veterans: prevalence and
treatment challenges. Substance Abuse & Rehabilitation, 8, 69. https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S116720
35
Centers for Disease Control. (2021). Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html
36
Merrick, M. T., Ford, D. C., Ports, K. A., Guinn, A. S., Chen, J., Klevens, J., ... & Mercy, J. A. (2019). Vital signs: Estimated proportion of
adult health problems attributable to adverse childhood experiences and implications for prevention—25 States, 2015–2017. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(44), 999. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6844e1.htm?s_cid=mm6844e1_w
37
Blosnich, J. R., Dichter, M. E., Cerulli, C., Batten, S. V., & Bossarte, R. M. (2014). Disparities in adverse childhood experiences among
individuals with a history of military service. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(9), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.724;
Guina, J., Nahhas, R. W., Goldberg, A. J., & Farnsworth, S. (2016). PTSD symptom severities, interpersonal traumas, and
benzodiazepines are associated with substance-related problems in trauma patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 5(8), 70.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm5080070
38
Blosnich, J. R., Dichter, M. E., Cerulli, C., Batten, S. V., & Bossarte, R. M. (2014). Disparities in adverse childhood experiences among
individuals with a history of military service. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(9), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.724;
Katon, J. G., Lehavot, K., Simpson, T. L., Williams, E. C., Barnett, S. B., Grossbard, J. R., et al. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences,
military service, and adult health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(4), 573–582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.020.

22
49

39

Katon, J. G., Lehavot, K., Simpson, T. L., Williams, E. C., Barnett, S. B., Grossbard, J. R., et al. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences,
military service, and adult health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(4), 573–582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.020
40
Aronson, K. R., Perkins, D. F., Morgan, N. R., Bleser, J. A., Vogt, D., Copeland, L. A., ... & Gilman, C. L. (2020). The impact of adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs) and combat exposure on mental health conditions among new post-9/11 veterans. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(7), 698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000614
41
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2021). Military sexual trauma (MST). https://www.va.gov/health-care/health-needsconditions/military-sexual-trauma/
42
Wilson, L. C. (2018). The prevalence of military sexual trauma: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(5), 584-597.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016683459
43
Wilson, L. C. (2018). The prevalence of military sexual trauma: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(5), 584-597.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016683459
44
Kimerling, R., Street, A. E., Pavao, J., Smith, M. W., Cronkite, R. C., Holmes, T. H., & Frayne, S. M. (2010). Military-related sexual trauma
among Veterans Health Administration patients returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 14091412. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.171793
45
Ackerman, A., Porter, B., & Sullivan, R. (2020). The effect of combat exposure on veteran homelessness. Journal of Housing
Economics, 49, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2020.101711
46
Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow, W. J., & McGuire, J. F. (2014). Homelessness in a national sample of incarcerated veterans in state
and federal prisons. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 41(3), 360-367.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-013-0483-7
47
Cusack, M., & Montgomery, A. E. (2017). Examining the bidirectional association between veteran homelessness and incarceration
within the context of permanent supportive housing. Psychological Services, 14(2), 250-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ser0000110;
Finlay, A. K., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., Nash, A., Capdarest-Arest, N., Rosenthal, J., ... & Timko, C. (2019). A scoping review of military
veterans involved in the criminal justice system and their health and healthcare. Health & Justice, 7(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0086-9; Logan, M. W., McNeeley, S., & Morgan, M. A. (2021). The effects of traumatic brain injury
and post-traumatic stress disorder on prison adjustment and recidivism among military veterans: evidence from Minnesota. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 92(3), 1147-1158. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-021-09883-1; Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow, W. J.,
& McGuire, J. F. (2014). Homelessness in a national sample of incarcerated veterans in state and federal prisons. Administration & Policy
in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 41(3), 360-367. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-013-0483-7
48
Finlay, A. K., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., Nash, A., Capdarest-Arest, N., Rosenthal, J., ... & Timko, C. (2019). A scoping review of military
veterans involved in the criminal justice system and their health and healthcare. Health & Justice, 7(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0086-9
49
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Newton, V. M., Straits-Troster, K., Vasterling, J. J., Wagner, H. R., & Beckham, J. C. (2012). Criminal
justice involvement, trauma, and negative affect in Iraq and Afghanistan war era veterans. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 80(6), 1097-1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029967
50
Logan, M. W., McNeeley, S., & Morgan, M. A. (2021). The effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder on
prison adjustment and recidivism among military veterans: evidence from Minnesota. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(3), 1147-1158.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-021-09883-1; MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R. J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L.,
... & Fear, N. T. (2013). Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The
Lancet, 381(9870), 907-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60354-2; Sherman, M. D., Sautter, F., Jackson, H. M., Lyons, J. A.,
& Han, X. (2006). Domestic violence in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder who seek couples therapy. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 32, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01622.x;Taft, C. T., Pless, A. P., Stalans, L. J., Koenen, K. C.,
King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2005). Risk factors for partner violence among a national sample of combat veterans. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.151; Taylor, E. N., Timko, C., Nash, A., Owens, M. D., Harris,
A. H., & Finlay, A. K. (2020). Posttraumatic stress disorder and justice involvement among military veterans: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33(5), 804-812. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8288507/
51
Backhaus, A., Gholizadeh, S., Godfrey, K. M., Pittman, J., & Afari, N. (2016). The many wounds of war: The association of servicerelated and clinical characteristics with problems with the law in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry,
49, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.10.007; Donley, S., Habib, L., Jovanovic, T., Kamkwalala, A., Evces, M., Egan, G., et al.
(2012). Civilian PTSD symptoms and risk for involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and Law, 40(4), 522–529. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752299/; Edalati, H., & Nicholls, T. L. (2017). Childhood
maltreatment and the risk for criminal justice involvement and victimization among homeless individuals: A systematic review. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017708783; Finlay, A. K., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., Nash, A., Capdarest-Arest, N.,
Rosenthal, J., ... & Timko, C. (2019). A scoping review of military veterans involved in the criminal justice system and their health and
healthcare. Health & Justice, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0086-9; MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R. J.,
Greenberg, N., Hull, L., ... & Fear, N. T. (2013). Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data
linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381(9870), 907-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60354-2
52
Saxon, A. J., Davis, T. M., Sloan, K. L., McKnight, K. M., McFall, M. E., & Kivlahan, D. R. (2001). Trauma, symptoms of posttraumatic
stress disorder, and associated problems among incarcerated veterans. Psychiatric Services, 52(7), 959–964.
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.52.7.959; Goldstein, R. B., Smith, S. M., Chou, S. P., Saha, T. D., Jung, J., Zhang,
H., ... & Grant, B. F. (2016). The epidemiology of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States: results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(8), 1137-1148.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-016-1208-5

23
50

53

Logan, M. W., McNeeley, S., & Morgan, M. A. (2021). The effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder on
prison adjustment and recidivism among military veterans: evidence from Minnesota. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(3), 1147-1158.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-021-09883-1
54
Logan, M. W., McNeeley, S., & Morgan, M. A. (2021). The effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder on
prison adjustment and recidivism among military veterans: evidence from Minnesota. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(3), 1147-1158.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-021-09883-1
55
Taylor, E. N., Timko, C., Nash, A., Owens, M. D., Harris, A. H., & Finlay, A. K. (2020). Posttraumatic stress disorder and justice
involvement among military veterans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33(5), 804-812.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8288507/
56
Awad, A. G., & Voruganti, L. L. (2015). Revisiting the ‘self-medication’ hypothesis in light of the new data linking low striatal dopamine
to comorbid addictive behavior. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, 5(3), 172-178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125315583820; Blume, A. W., Schmaling, K. B., & Marlatt, G. A. (2000). Revisiting the self-medication
hypothesis from a behavioral perspective. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 7(4), 379-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10777229(00)80048-6; Jeffirs, S. M., Jarnecke, A. M., Flanagan, J. C., Killeen, T. K., Laffey, T. F., & Back, S. E. (2019). Veterans with PTSD and
comorbid substance use disorders: Does single versus poly-substance use disorder affect treatment outcomes? Drug & Alcohol
Dependence, 199, 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.001
57
Hoyt, T., Wray, A. M., & Rielage, J. K. (2014). Preliminary investigation of the roles of military background and posttraumatic stress
symptoms in frequency and recidivism of intimate partner violence perpetration among court-referred men. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(6), 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506058; Sherman, M. D., Sautter, F., Jackson, H. M., Lyons, J. A., &
Han, X. (2006). Domestic violence in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder who seek couples therapy. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 32, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01622.x; Taft, C. T., Pless, A. P., Stalans, L. J., Koenen, K. C.,
King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2005). Risk factors for partner violence among a national sample of combat veterans. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.151
58
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Wagner, H. R., Sullivan, C., Taft, C. T., & Beckham, J. C. (2014). Violent behaviour and post-traumatic
stress disorder in US Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(5), 368-375.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.134627; MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R. J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., ... & Fear, N. T.
(2013). Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The
Lancet, 381(9870), 907-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60354-2; Stappenbeck, C. A., Hellmuth, J. C., Simpson, T., &
Jakupcak, M. (2014). The effects of alcohol problems, PTSD, and combat exposure on nonphysical and physical aggression among Iraq
and Afghanistan war veterans. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, & Policy, 6(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031468
59
Sherman, M. D., Sautter, F., Jackson, H. M., Lyons, J. A., & Han, X. (2006). Domestic violence in veterans with posttraumatic stress
disorder who seek couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17520606.2006.tb01622.x; Taft, C. T., Pless, A. P., Stalans, L. J., Koenen, K. C., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2005). Risk factors for partner
violence among a national sample of combat veterans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 151–159.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.151
60
Stappenbeck, C. A., Hellmuth, J. C., Simpson, T., & Jakupcak, M. (2014). The effects of alcohol problems, PTSD, and combat exposure
on nonphysical and physical aggression among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, &
Policy, 6(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031468
61
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Wagner, H. R., Sullivan, C., Taft, C. T., & Beckham, J. C. (2014). Violent behaviour and post-traumatic
stress disorder in US Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(5), 368-375.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.134627
62
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Wagner, H. R., Sullivan, C., Taft, C. T., & Beckham, J. C. (2014). Violent behaviour and post-traumatic
stress disorder in US Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(5), 368-375.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.134627
63
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2018). The Military to Civilian Transition 2018: A review of historical, current, and future
trends. https://benefits.va.gov/TRANSITION/docs/mct-report-2018.pdf
64
Reguations.gov. (n.d.). Transition assistance program (TAP) for military personnel. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOD-2013-OS0236/unified-agenda
65
Congressional Research Service. (2018). Military transition assistance program (TAP): An overview.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF10347.pdf
66
Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience and the post-9/11 generation. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteran-experience-and-the-post-9-11generation/
67
Parker, K., Igielnik, R., Barroso, A., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). The American veteran experience and the post-9/11 generation. Pew Research
Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/09/10/the-american-veteran-experience-and-the-post-9-11-generation/
68
The VA deems those who served ineligible until they complete a character of service process and disprove the application of
regulatory burdens under 38 C.F.R. 3.12(b)-(d); for a description of this process, see: Ledesma, S. S. (2018). PTSD and Bad Paper
Discharges: Why the Fairness to Soldiers Act Is Too Little, Too Late. Elon Law Review, 10, 189-237.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/elonlr10&div=10&id=&page=
69
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf

24
51

70

Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, ch 268, § 300, 58 Stat. 284, 286, as cited in: Adams, B., & Montalto, D. (2017). With Malice
toward None: Revisiting the Historical and Legal Basis for Excluding Veterans from Veteran Services. Penn State Law Review, 122, 69140. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/dlr122&div=5&id=&page=
71
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf
72
Swords to Plowshares and National Veteran Services Program. (2022). Underserved: How the VA wrongly excludes veterans with bad
paper. https://www.swords-to-plowshares.org/research-publications/underserved
73
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf
74
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf
75
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was first established as policy under the Clinton administration and later codified to allow homosexual service
members to serve in the military as long as they were not asked about their sexuality and did not express the same or commit
homosexual acts. See: Lowry, N.S. (2021). Repealing don’t ask, don’t tell: A historical perspective from the joint chiefs of staff.
Washington, DC: Joint History and Research Office.
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/Dec21/SHS_15_Repealing_DADT.pdf
76
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf
77
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf
78
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2017). DOD health: Actions needed to ensure post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury are considered in misconduct separations (Report no. GAO-17-260). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-260
79
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2017). DOD health: Actions needed to ensure post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury are considered in misconduct separations (Report no. GAO-17-260). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-260
80
Ledesma, S. S. (2018). PTSD and Bad Paper Discharges: Why the Fairness to Soldiers Act Is Too Little, Too Late. Elon Law Review, 10,
189-237. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/elonlr10&div=10&id=&page=
81
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2017). DOD health: Actions needed to ensure post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury are considered in misconduct separations (Report no. GAO-17-260). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-260
82
Brignone, E., Fargo, J. D., Blais, R. K., Carter, M. E., Samore, M. H., & Gundlapalli, A. V. (2017). Non-routine discharge from military
service: Mental illness, substance use disorders, and suicidality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 557-565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.015
83
Highfill-McRoy, R. M., Larson, G. E., Booth-Kewley, S., & Garland, C. F. (2010). Psychiatric diagnoses and punishment for misconduct:
the effects of PTSD in combat-deployed Marines. BMC Psychiatry, 10(1), 1-8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-244X-1088
84
Snowden, D. L., Oh, S., Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., & King, E. (2017). Military service and crime: New evidence. Social Psychiatry
& Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(5), 605-615. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1342-8; Timko, C., Nash, A., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., &
Finlay, A. K. (2020). Systematic review of criminal and legal involvement after substance use and mental health treatment among
veterans: building toward needed research. Substance Abuse: Research & Treatment, 14, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221819901281
85
Brown, W. B., Stanulis, R., Theis, B., Farnsworth, J., & Daniels, D. (2013). The perfect storm: Veterans, culture and the criminal justice
system. Justice Policy Journal, 10(2), 1-44. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.656.6133&rep=rep1&type=pdf
86
Gideon, L. (Ed.).(2012). Special needs offenders in correctional institutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452275444.
87
Ahlin, E. M., & Douds, A. S. (2020). If you build it, will vets come? An identity theory approach to expanding veterans’ treatment court
participation. Criminal Justice Review, 45(3), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016820914075
88
Pelletier, D. (2022). Identifying the veteran population within the criminal justice system. Justice for Vets.
https://justiceforvets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Identifying-the-Veteran-Population-Within-the-CJS-2022.pdf
89
Pelletier, D. (2022). Identifying the veteran population within the criminal justice system. Justice for Vets.
https://justiceforvets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Identifying-the-Veteran-Population-Within-the-CJS-2022.pdf
90
S.C. Clark, National Director, Veterans Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, personal communication, July 20,
2022.
91
Finlay, A. K., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., Nash, A., Capdarest-Arest, N., Rosenthal, J., ... & Timko, C. (2019). A scoping review of military
veterans involved in the criminal justice system and their health and healthcare. Health & Justice, 7(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0086-9; Hoyt, T., Wray, A. M., & Rielage, J. K. (2014). Preliminary investigation of the roles of

25
52

military background and posttraumatic stress symptoms in frequency and recidivism of intimate partner violence perpetration among
court-referred men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(6), 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506058
92
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2022). Veterans justice outreach program. https://www.va.gov/homeless/vjo.asp.
93
Congress.Gov. (n.d.). S.3323: Veterans justice outreach improvement act of 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117thcongress/senate-bill/3323/text?r=8&s=1
94
National League of State Legislatures. (2017). Pretrial diversion. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/pretrialdiversion.aspx.
95
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2012). Mental health courts program. https://bja.ojp.gov/program/mental-health-courtsprogram/overview; National Institute of Justice. (2020). Overview of drug courts. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-drugcourts.
96
Office of Public Affairs, Veterans Treatment Courts and Other Veteran-Focused Courts Served VA Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists,
(Washington DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, January 2021), https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/docs/VJO/VeteransTreatment-Court-Inventory-Update-Fact-Sheet-Jan-2021.pdf.
97
Note the VA’s method of counting veterans courts differs from that of the National Drug Court Resource Center, which reported 495
veterans treatment courts nationwide as of 12/31/2021. See: National Drug Court Resource Center. (2022). Treatment court maps.
https://ndcrc.org/interactive-maps/
98
Baldwin, J. (2015). Investigating the programmatic attack: A national survey of veterans treatment courts. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 105(3).
99
Note the VA’s method of counting veterans courts differs from that of the National Drug Court Resource Center, which reported 495
veterans treatment courts nationwide as of 12/31/2021. See: National Drug Court Resource Center. (2022). Treatment court maps.
https://ndcrc.org/interactive-maps/
100
American University, School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office. (2016). Veterans treatment courts: 2015 survey results.
https://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/initiatives/drug-court/upload/veterans-treatment-courts-2015-survey-results.pdf
101
Tsai, J., Finlay, A., Flatley, B., Kasprow, W. J., & Clark, S. (2018). A national study of veterans treatment court participants: Who
benefits and who recidivates. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 45(2), 236-244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0816-z
102
Tsai, J., Flatley, B., Kasprow, W. J., Clark, S., & Finlay, A. (2017). Diversion of veterans with criminal justice involvement to treatment
courts: Participant characteristics and outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 68(4), 375-383.
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.201600233
103
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf
104
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf
105
The Office of General Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2012). Case annotations and resources: Military service, USSG §5H1.11
departures, and booker variances. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2012_01_Military_Service_5H111_Departures_Booker_Variances.pdf
106
Sanchez, N.R. (2018). De-criminalizing military service through deferred prosecution in veteran treatment courts. Lewis & Clark Law
Review Online, 22(1), 27-44. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/27128-sanchezpdf
107
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
108
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
109
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
110
World Prison Brief. (n.d.). Highest to lowest: Prison population total. https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prisonpopulation-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All
111
World Prison Brief. (n.d.). Highest to lowest: Prison population total. https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prisonpopulation-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All
112
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf; Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021).
Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf; Noonan, M.E., & Mumola, C.J. (2007). Veterans in state and federal prison, 2004 (NCJ
217199). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/vsfp04.pdf
113
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf
114
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf
115
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
116
The Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. (2020). Turned away: How VA unlawfully denies health
care to veterans with bad paper discharges. OUTVETS, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.
https://www.legalservicescenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Turn-Away-Report.pdf

26
53

117

Sigafoos, C. E. (1994). A PTSD treatment program for combat (Vietnam) veterans in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 38(2), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9403800204
118
Drapela, L. A., Lutze, F. E., Tollefsbol, E. T., & Pimley, N. (2019). Assessing the behavior and needs of veterans with traumatic brain
injury in Washington State prisons: Establishing a foundation for policy, practice, and education. Justice Quarterly, 36(6), 1023-1049.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1481221; Logan, M. W., McNeeley, S., & Morgan, M. A. (2021). The effects of traumatic brain
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder on prison adjustment and recidivism among military veterans: evidence from
Minnesota. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(3), 1147-1158. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-021-09883-1
119
Edelman, B., & Benos, D. (2018). Barracks behind bars: In veteran-specific housing units, veterans help veterans help themselves.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. https://info.nicic.gov/jiv/sites/info.nicic.gov.jiv/files/Barracks-Behind-Bars-508.pdf
; Vanek, S., Brown, R., Busby, H., Amos, S., & Crawford, G. (2019), Barracks behind bars II: In veteran-specific housing units, veterans help
veterans help themselves. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/033092.pdf
120
National Institute of Corrections (2022). Prisons and jails with dorms for veterans. https://info.nicic.gov/jiv/node/27
121
Tsai, J., & Goggin, E. (2017). Characteristics, needs, and experiences of US veterans on a specialized prison unit. Evaluation & Program
Planning, 64, 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.05.016
122
Burke, C., Keaton, S., Schroeder, G., & Ocheltree, K. (2019). Veterans moving forward: Process and impact evaluation results of the San
Diego county sheriff’s department VMF program. San Diego, CA: SANDAG.
https://sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_4548_24833.pdf
123
Rosenthal, J., & Finlay, A. K. (2022). Expanding the Scope of Forensic and Other Services for Justice-Involved Veterans. The Journal of
the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 50(1), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.29158/jaapl.210047-21
124
Veterans Healing Veterans. (n.d.). Our history. https://veteranshealingveterans.com/history.html
125
Veterans Incarcerated Workgroup. (2018). An incarcerated veterans guidebook for Washington state. Walla Walla, WA: Veterans
Incarcerated Workgroup, 2009. https://defensenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Incarcerated-Veterans-Guidebook-forWashignton-State.pdf
126
National Archives. (n.d.). §17.38 Medical benefits package. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-17/subject-groupECFRf01c7718f2a7e24/section-17.38
127
Rosenthal, J., & Finlay, A. K. (2022). Expanding the Scope of Forensic and Other Services for Justice-Involved Veterans. The Journal of
the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 50(1), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.29158/jaapl.210047-21
128
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison—a
high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064115
129
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison—a
high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064115
130
Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison—a
high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064115
131
Wortzel, H. S., Blatchford, P., Conner, L., Adler, L. E., & Binswanger, I. A. (2012). Risk of death for veterans on release from prison. The
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 40(3), 348. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5262440/
132
Wortzel, H. S., Blatchford, P., Conner, L., Adler, L. E., & Binswanger, I. A. (2012). Risk of death for veterans on release from prison. The
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 40(3), 348. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5262440/
133
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Community corrections: Probation and parole. https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/communitycorrections
134
Bronson, J., Carson, A., Noonan, M., & Berzofsky, M. (2015). Veterans in prison and jail, 2011-12 (NCJ 249144). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf
135
Reingle Gonzalez, J. M., & Connell, N. M. (2014). Mental health of prisoners: Identifying barriers to mental health treatment and
medication continuity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(12), 2328-2333.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232131/
136
Finlay, A. K., Stimmel, M., Blue-Howells, J., Rosenthal, J., McGuire, J., Binswanger, I., ... & Timko, C. (2017). Use of Veterans Health
Administration mental health and substance use disorder treatment after exiting prison: The Health Care for Reentry Veterans
program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 44(2), 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488015-0708-z
137
Solomon, A. L. (2004). From prison to work: The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411097.html
138
Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative.
https://www.ywboston.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Out-of-Prison-Out-of-Work-_-Prison-Policy-Initiative.pdf
139
Carson, E., Sandler, D.H., Bhaskar, R., Fernandez, L.E., & Porter, S.R. (2021) Employment of persons released from federal prisons in 2010
(NCJ 303147). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/eprfp10.pdf
140
LePage, J. P., Crawford, A. M., & Philippe, M. (2018). The association between time incarcerated and the search for employment in a
veteran sample with substance use disorders. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 41(4), 328.
141
Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow, W. J., & McGuire, J. F. (2014). Homelessness in a national sample of incarcerated veterans in state
and federal prisons. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(3), 360-367.
142
Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2003). Employment barriers facing ex-offenders. Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable, 1-23;
Roman, C. G., & Travis, J. (2006). Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner. Housing Policy
Debate, 17(2), 389-418.

27
54

143
Department of Veterans Affairs. (2020). Veterans justice programs.
https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=5473
144
Blue-Howells, J. H., Clark, S. C., van den Berk-Clark, C., & McGuire, J. F. (2013). The US Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans
Justice programs and the sequential intercept model: Case examples in national dissemination of intervention for justice-involved
veterans. Psychological Services, 10(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029652; McGuire, J. (2007). Closing a front door to homelessness
among veterans. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(3), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-007-0091-y
145
Department of Veterans Affairs. (2020). Veterans justice programs.
https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=5473
146
Finlay, A. K., Stimmel, M., Blue-Howells, J., Rosenthal, J., McGuire, J., Binswanger, I., ... & Timko, C. (2017). Use of Veterans Health
Administration mental health and substance use disorder treatment after exiting prison: The Health Care for Reentry Veterans
program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44(2), 177-187.
147
Timko, C., Nash, A., Owens, M. D., Taylor, E., & Finlay, A. K. (2020). Systematic review of criminal and legal involvement after
substance use and mental health treatment among veterans: building toward needed research. Substance Abuse: Research and
Treatment, 14, 1178221819901281.
148
Kaeble, D. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020 (NCJ 303102). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus20.pdf
149
Snowden, D. L., Oh, S., Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., & King, E. (2017). Military service and crime: New evidence. Social
Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(5), 605-615. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1342-8;
150
Maruschak, L.M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Survey of prison inmates, 2016: Veterans in prison (NCJ 252646). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpspi16st.pdf

28
55

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Marlow, Mariel (CDC/DDID/NCHHSTP/OD)
Carson, Elizabeth (OJP)
Myles, Ranell (CDC/DDID/NCHHSTP/OD); MacGowan, Robin J. (CDC/DDID/NCHHSTP/DHP); McCree, Donna
(CDC/DDID/NCHHSTP/OD)
[EXTERNAL] Recommended revisions to HIV questions in the National Prisoner Statistics Program Survey
Monday, November 28, 2022 9:41:04 AM
image001.png
image002.png

Dear Dr. Carson,

Hope you are well. We appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment on the Federal
Register announcement Agency Information Collection Activities: National Prisoner Statistics
Program.  Document Citation: 87 FR 57221, Page: 57221-57222, Agency/Docket Number:
OMB Number 1121-0102,  Document Number: 2022-20159. Apologies that we are submitting
our comment pass the deadline. We hope the suggestions provided below will still be
considered.

One of the items seeking comments concerns the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected and how it can be enhanced.  We are writing to provide recommended
revisions to the collection of data on HIV testing and diagnosis among persons in custody
question.  These recommended revisions are consistent with current recommended HIV
terminology use from the CDC National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB
Prevention, Division of HIV Prevention. Adoption of this language would allow for better
comparison with CDC surveillance and research data, be consistent with the adoption of
persons first language for data standards, and assist with ensuring all persons diagnosed with
HIV will be counted.    

Edit to Question: On December 31, YEAR, how many people (inmates) under your custody
were diagnosed with HIV infection?   Suggestion: Use the words  “were diagnosed” because
they would not know how many were living with HIV and had not been diagnosed.  This will
more accurately reflect the data being reported.

Edit to Explanation: Include all people (inmates) under your custody, regardless of sentence
length, who had been diagnosed with HIV and who did not have HIV-related symptoms, had
HIV-related symptoms and those who have confirmed AIDS/Stage 3 HIV infection.   (“AIDS”
should probably be included here, but the Stage 3 HIV infection could be excluded.)

56

If it is useful, here is the text from the HIV Surveillance Report page:
The annual HIV Surveillance Report provides an overview on the current epidemiology of
HIV disease in the United States and dependent areas. CDC funds state and territorial health
departments to collect surveillance data on persons with diagnosed HIV infection; all
personal identifiers are removed from these data before being transmitted to CDC via a secure
data network. Data are analyzed by CDC and then displayed by age, race, sex at birth, gender,
transmission category, and jurisdiction (where appropriate). Prior to the 2008 reporting year,
the report was referred to as the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Best regards,
Mariel

Mariel Marlow, PhD, MPH
Health Scientist, Correctional Health Coordinator
Office of Health Equity
National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS US8-6
1600 Clifton Road, NE 
Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027
Office: 404-639-4731 Fax: 404-639-0897  Email: KLT8@cdc.gov
Pronouns: she, her, hers

57

Appendix 5:
National Prisoner Statistics Program: Letter from
BJS to accompany the 2022 data collection form

58

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531
December 15, 2022
<>
<>
<<Department>>
Dear <<salutation>>,
Enclosed is a copy of the National Prisoner Statistics (NPS 1B) form for your 2022 yearend data. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) wants to thank you for your past participation in NPS. The 2022 collection is the 97th year
of continuous data collection for the NPS, which was authorized as a national data collection program by
Congress in 1926. The NPS data are widely used by practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and the general
public.
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes collection of
these data. The Office of Management and Budget approved this collection (OMB Control No: 1121-0102;
Expiration Date: 01/30/2023; currently undergoing reapproval). For more information, see
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201403-1121-006.
Your participation is voluntary but we need your assistance to make the NPS data complete and accurate. BJS is
committed to disseminating accurate and timely statistics, and we plan to publish the Prisoners in 2021 bulletin in
October, 2022 as a final count of prison admissions, releases, and yearend population. For that reason, we request
that you complete and submit your form by February 28, 2023.
Abt Associates is again the BJS data collection agent for NPS-1B. The majority of NPS respondents are also
respondents to the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). Abt Associates serves as data collection
agent for both the NPS and the NCRP.
We ask that you submit your NPS-1B data via the web, at nps.abtassociates.com. Login and password
information are enclosed. If you need technical assistance in submitting your data, please contact Tom Rich via
email at Tom_Rich@abtassoc.com, or by phone at (617) 349-2753.
If you have questions to the NPS collection, please contact the BJS NPS program manager, Ann Carson, at
Elizabeth.Carson@usdoj.gov or (202) 616-3496. We thank you greatly for your continued participation in BJS’s
statistical programs.
Sincerely,

Richard Kluckow
Chief, Corrections Statistics Unit

Enclosure

59

Appendix 6:
National Prisoner Statistics Program
Screenshots of 2021 NPS-1B secure web data collection tool

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Appendix 7:
National Prisoner Statistics Program
Non-response follow-up email

77

Date

Contact
Title
Department
Address 1
City, State Zipcode
Dear Contact,
Thank you for your continued participation in the National Prisoner Statistics 1B year-end data collection
program.
BJS intends to publish its annual Prisoners in 2022 bulletin in September 2023 to provide the public
with more timely statistics. To meet this deadline, we request that you submit your 2022 form as
soon as possible. If you have inquiries regarding the collection, please contact Tom Rich, our data
collection agent at Abt Associates, Inc, via telephone at 617-349-2753 or email at
tom_rich@abtassociates.com. If you have any general comments about these collections, you may also
contact me 202-616-3496 or Elizabeth.Carson@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,

E. Ann Carson, Ph.D.
Corrections Statistics Program

78

Appendix 8:
National Prisoner Statistics Program
Email request for final tabulation review and approval

79

Date
Contact
Title
Department
Address 1
City, State Zipcode
Dear Contact,

Thank you for participating in the National Prisoner Statistics Program (NPS). The Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) is getting ready release its annual Prisoners in 2022 bulletin at the end of
September 2023.
Attached are 8 draft tables using data on prisoners under your jurisdiction and in your custody
on December 31, 2022. We are sending you this draft before the public release to give you an
opportunity to verify the accuracy of your data. We have also attached a blank NPS form should
you need to refer back to BJS definitions for various measures. Please review these tables and
provide any revisions before July 15, 2023. If we do not hear from you by that time, we will
assume that your state’s statistics are correct and will proceed with publication.
The numbers contained in the tables are preliminary and may be revised. Please do not cite
data for any other jurisdictions prior to publication of the report.
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, I thank you for providing these data to us. If you
have any questions about your data, please contact me at 202/616.3496 or
elizabeth.carson@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
E. Ann Carson
Corrections Statistics Unit
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
Attachment.

80

Appendix 9:
National Prisoner Statistics Program
2022 NPS-1B(T) data collection form

81

NPS-1B(T)
Abt Associates
RETURN National Prisoner Statistics Survey
10 Fawcett Street
TO
Cambridge, MA 02138

OMB No. 1121-0102: Approval Expires 01/31/2023

NPS-1B(T)

FORM
(1-31-2023)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Prisoner Statistics
Prison Population Report
2022

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
and ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT

ABT ASSOCIATES INC.

DATA SUPPLIED BY
Title

NAME
Area Code Number
TELEPHONE

Extension

FAX
NUMBER

Area Code Number

E-MAIL ADDRESS

GENERAL INFORMATION
• If you have any questions, contact the Abt Associates NPS Project Director, Tom Rich (617-349-2753 or tom_rich@abtassoc.com)
or the BJS NPS Program Manager, E. Ann Carson (202-616-3496 or elizabeth.carson@ojp.usdoj.gov).
• Please submit the completed questionnaire by emailing a scanned copy of the form to tom_rich@abtassoc.com, by mailing the
completed form to Abt Associates at the address above, or by FAXing all pages to 1-617-218-4500.
• Please retain a copy of the completed form for your records.

Who does this survey cover?
This survey covers all sentenced and unsentenced inmates under your jurisdiction on December 31, 2022, regardless
of the location of the inmates.
• INCLUDE inmates under your Territory’s/Commonwealth’s jurisdiction held in your prison facilities (e.g., prisons, penitentiaries and!
correctional institutions; reception, diagnostic and classification centers; half-way houses, treatment centers, release centers, work farms,!
bootcamps, and prison farms).
• INCLUDE inmates under your jurisdiction backed up in local jails or held in another jurisdiction’s facilities.
• INCLUDE inmates who are temporarily absent (less than 30 days), out to court, or on work release.
• INCLUDE inmates who are serving a sentence for your Territory/Commonwealth and another jurisdiction at the same time in your facilities.
• EXCLUDE pre-trial detainees and other inmates held in your Territory’s/Commonwealth’s facilities for another jurisdiction.
This survey covers all sentenced and unsentenced inmates in your custody on December 31, 2022.
• INCLUDE your jurisdiction’s inmates and inmates your Territory/Commonwealth housed for other jurisdictions who were physically located in
your prison facilities on December 31, 2022.
• EXCLUDE your Territory’s/Commonwealth’s inmates held outside of your prison facilities.

INSTRUCTIONS
•
•
•
•
•

Please do not leave any item blank.
If the answer to a question is "not available" or "unknown," write "DK" in the space provided.
If the answer to a question is "not applicable" write "NA" in the space provided.
If the answer to a question is "none" or "zero," write "0" in the space provided.
Please give the name, title, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the person filling out the report in the space
provided above.
82

SECTION I – YEAR-END JURISDICTION COUNTS
1. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your jurisdiction–
Please do not count any inmates in more than one category.
• Include all inmates for whom your Territory/Commonwealth
government has the legal authority and responsibility for the
enforcement of their prison sentence, regardless of their location.
December 31, 2022

a. Had a total maximum sentence of more than 1 year?
• Include inmates serving consecutive sentences that add
to more than 1 year.
• Include inmates serving concurrent sentences in which
the sentence for the most serious offense is more than
1 year.

Male

Female

December 31, 2021
(If Available)
Male

Female

b. Had a total maximum sentence of 1 year or less?

c. Were unsentenced?
d. TOTAL
(Sum of Items 1a through 1c)
2. How complete are the counts in item 1, above? Mark (X) one.
Complete count —
Partial count —

The figures are based on actual counts of all inmates under your jurisdiction.
The figures are based on actual counts of inmates under your jurisdiction but exclude certain types of
inmates who should be included in the counts (e.g., inmates housed in other jurisdictions, facilities due to
crowding). Please identify the types of inmates excluded in Section V on page 4.

Estimate —

The figures are based on estimates rather than actual counts of inmates under your jurisdiction. Please
identify which items were estimated, and how the estimates were derived in Section V on page 4.

SECTION II – YEAR-END CUSTODY COUNTS
3. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your custody–
Please do not count any inmates in more than one category.
• Include all inmates who are physically located in your Territorial
facilities only, including those your Territory housed for another jurisdiction.
December 31, 2022

a. Had a total maximum sentence of more than 1 year?
• Include inmates serving consecutive sentences that add
to more than 1 year.
• Include inmates serving concurrent sentences in which
the sentence for the most serious offense is more than
1 year.

Male

Female

December 31, 2021
(If Available)
Male

Female

b. Had a total maximum sentence of 1 year or less?

c. Were unsentenced?
d. TOTAL
(Sum of Items 3a through 3c)
4. How complete are the counts in item 3, above? Mark (X) one.

Page 2

Complete count —
Partial count —

The figures are based on actual counts of all inmates under your custody.
The figures are based on actual counts of inmates in your custody but exclude certain types of inmates
who should be included in the counts (e.g., inmates from another jurisdiction housed in your facilities).
Please identify the types of inmates excluded in Section V on page 4.

Estimate —

The figures are based on estimates rather than actual counts of inmates in your custody. Please identify
which items were estimated, and how the estimates were derived in Section V on page 4.
83

FORM NPS-1B(T) (1-31-2023)

SECTION III – RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
5. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates under your jurisdiction–
December 31, 2022
Please do not count any inmates in more than one category.
• Include all inmates for whom your Territory/Commonwealth
government has the legal authority and responsibility for the
enforcement of their prison sentence, regardless of their location.

Male

Female

December 31, 2021
(If Available)
Male

Female

a. White (not of Hispanic origin)

b. Black (not of Hispanic origin)
c. Hispanic or Latino (If your system records indicate Hispanic origin
separately from race, enter "NR" in item 5c and report count in
NOTES.)
d. American Indian/Alaska Native
(not of Hispanic origin)

e. Asian (not of Hispanic origin)
f. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
(not of Hispanic origin)

g. Two or more races (not of Hispanic origin)
h. Additional categories in
your information system – Specify

i. Not known
j. TOTAL
(Sum of 5a through 5i)

SECTION IV – CROWDING AND CAPACITY
6. a. On December 31, 2022, how many inmates were under your jurisdiction but were
housed in facilities operated by other Commonwealth/Territory, State, or Federal
authorities, solely to ease prison crowding?
• INCLUDE only inmates that were held in a prison in another Commonweath/Territory,
State, or in the Federal system, solely to ease prison crowding.

December 31, 2022
Male

Female

• EXCLUDE inmates held outside your jurisdiction’s facilities for reasons
other than crowding (e.g., work release, court appearance, hospitals,
treatment programs).
b. Are these inmates included in the counts in Section I, item 1d?
Yes

No — Please explain in Section V on page 4.

7. On December 31, 2022, what was the capacity of your prison system?
• If your system has more than one prison, enter the combined capacity.
• If the answer is "not available" or "unknown," write "DK" in the space provided.
• If the answer is "not applicable," write "NA" in the space provided.

December 31, 2022
Male

Female

a. What was the rated capacity?
o The number of beds or inmates assigned by rating officials to institutions.
b. What was the operational capacity?
o The number of inmates that can be accommodated based on staff, existing!
programs, and services in institutions.
c. What was the design capacity?
o The number of inmates that planners or architects intended for all institutions
within!your jurisdiction.
FORM NPS-1B(T) (1-31-2023)

84

Page 3

SECTION V – EXPLANATORY NOTES

Page 4

85

FORM NPS-1B(T) (1-31-2023)

</pre><Table class="table"><tr><Td>File Type</td><td>application/pdf</td></tr><tr><Td>Author</td><td>Carson, Elizabeth</td></tr><tr><Td>File Modified</td><td>2022-12-14</td></tr><tr><Td>File Created</td><td>2022-11-16</td></tr></table></div></div></div><hr>
© 2024 OMB.report | <a href="/privacy_policy.php" rel="nofollow">Privacy Policy</a>

<hr >
</div>
</body>
<script defer async src="/js/instant.page.3.0.0.js" type="module" data-cfasync="false"></script>
</html>