Pennsylvania lawmakers hear experts urge wider, standardized use of veterans treatment courts

A joint hearing of the Pennsylvania House Veterans Affairs and Judiciary Committees in Harrisburg on Oct. 12 focused on expanding and standardizing veterans treatment courts (VTCs) and related policies to serve justice-involved veterans across the Commonwealth.

The hearing opened with panelists from All Rise, the Council on Criminal Justice and Montgomery County courts explaining that VTCs pair close court supervision with evidence-based treatment, improve housing and employment outcomes, reduce recidivism and cost less than incarceration.

The issue matters because VTCs are unevenly available and apply widely different eligibility rules, panelists said. "Veterans treatment courts are intensive programs that pair close supervision accountability with robust evidence-based treatment," said Major General Clyde "Butch" Tate, former U.S. Army deputy judge advocate general and chief counsel for All Rise, adding that the model works best for veterans assessed as both high risk and high need. "While many VTCs accept veterans with discharge statuses that restrict or eliminate their VA benefits, bad paper...it is important that these programs develop partnership with veteran-specific treatment providers in the community," Tate said.

The model policy framework developed by the Veterans Justice Commission (VJC) and discussed at the hearing would broaden statutory options, create uniform legal incentives for judges and expand diversion and deferred-adjudication tools, several witnesses said. "Eligibility should be as broad as possible to maximize the intervention opportunity we have when a veteran falls into the system," said Brock Hunter, a veterans criminal defense attorney and adviser to the VJC.

Council on Criminal Justice director Mac McKeown cited wide variation in practice nationwide and recommended incentives to increase state and local use of Department of Veterans Affairs verification tools. "The Department of Veterans Affairs has created tools…that allow law enforcement, jails, and courts to independently verify veteran status. But usage of these systems is extremely low," McKeown said, noting that low uptake undercuts reliable counts of veterans in jails and prisons.

Judge Stephen O'Neil of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas described local implementation and outcomes. He said Pennsylvania has a robust network of treatment courts: "We have 129 treatment courts in this commonwealth...we have 25, 27 veterans treatment courts," and cited local results: "I've had 856 graduates of our treatment court over the years" and characterized treatment-court costs as roughly $8,000 per participant per year versus about $20,000 for incarceration in Montgomery County.

Members pressed witnesses on eligibility for violent-offense cases and the role of victims. "We recognize that a therapeutic intervention is just simply not realistic or feasible for the most serious of violent offenses," McKeown said, but added that, "even many veterans who commit violent offenses are redeemable" if assessed and treated properly. Panelists repeatedly emphasized victim participation: "The victim always has a role in his or her case," Tate said.

Witnesses and legislators also discussed gaps in coverage. Brock Hunter said only about 15% of U.S. jurisdictions have VTCs and that in Pennsylvania "25 of the 67 counties have veterans treatment courts," leaving many areas without a VTC. Judge O'Neil described regional courts as a solution for rural counties and noted a veterans-treatment-response-team for law enforcement crisis intervention in Montgomery County.

Panelists urged several policy steps: universal screening and assessment for veteran status at all justice-system contact points; incentivizing use of VA databases (referred to in testimony as SQUARES and VRSS) by courts, jails and law enforcement; broader statutory definitions of "veteran" to include those with non-honorable or administrative discharges where appropriate; standardized best-practice implementation and mentor recruitment and training. "What matters most to the veteran in your court is actions, not words — services, peer support, compassion, and standards," Tate said.

Legislators raised practical implementation questions. Representative Ecker asked what tools a VTC provides that a judge could not already offer; witnesses pointed to standardized best-practice standards, trained mentors, court-provided treatment officers and consistent legal incentives that are not presently available in every jurisdiction. Representative Bonner noted an ongoing Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission study, due in September, and asked whether victims should be allowed to object to diversion of veterans charged with violent crimes; witnesses said victims should have an active role and judges should retain discretion.

Panelists also flagged data and identification shortfalls. McKeown said Pennsylvania reported approximately 2,462 veterans in state prisons in 2023 based on self‑reporting — about 6.5% of the incarcerated population — but cautioned that undercounting is likely and urged greater use of federal verification tools.

The hearing concluded without formal votes. Lawmakers and witnesses agreed on the need for greater statewide coordination: better identification of veterans, broader and clearer eligibility and statutory incentives, more trained mentors (including women and post-9/11 mentors), and sustained funding for treatment and regional delivery where local courts cannot operate VTCs.

The joint committees adjourned after approximately 80 minutes of testimony and member questions; several legislators asked for follow-up briefings and indicated interest in statutory changes and pilot expansions to address gaps identified in the testimony.