October 2013

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Report:

veterans in the arrestee
population

ii

Arizona Arrestee Reporting
Information Network
2013

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Report:
The Prevalence and Problem of Military Veterans
in the Maricopa County Arrestee Population

By
Michael D. White, Ph.D.
October 2013

Suggested citation:
White, Michael D. (2013). Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network: 2013 Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office Report: The Prevalence and Problem of Military Veterans in the Maricopa County Arrestee Population.
Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.

i

AARIN Program Overview

The Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) is a monitoring system that provides
ongoing descriptive information about drug use, crime, victimization, and other characteristics of
interest among individuals arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona. Funded by the Maricopa County Board
of Supervisors beginning in 2007, AARIN is modeled after the former National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
national-level Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM). In three facilities throughout the
county, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary and confidential interviews with recently
booked adult arrestees and juvenile detainees. Questions focus on a range of topics including education,
employment and other demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), substance abuse and
dependence risk, criminal activity, gang affiliation, victimization, mental health, interactions with police,
public health concerns, incarceration and probation, citizenship, and treatment experiences. Each
interviewee also provides a urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs.
Arrestees who have been in custody longer than 48 hours are ineligible for participation in AARIN, due
to the 72-hour time limitation for valid testing of urine specimen.
The instruments used and the reporting mechanism underwent a substantial revision in 2011. While
maintaining all of the data elements from the previous core set of questions, the baseline interview
expanded by more than 60%. Additionally, with the change in the core questionnaire, the project shifted
its reporting strategy to focus reports to each of six key Maricopa County criminal justice agencies:
Maricopa County Manager’s Office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office, Office of the Public Defender, Adult Probation Department, and the Juvenile Probation
Department.
Overall, AARIN serves as a near-real time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse
and related activity in Maricopa County, AZ. This information helps to inform policy and practice among
police, courts and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals
who find themselves in the criminal justice system.
For information using the most recent set of data, please see the following reports:
•

Maricopa County Manager’s Office – Report on medical marijuana use among the arrestee
population of Maricopa County.

•

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – Report based on the Booking Process Addendum, which
assesses the implementation and early indicators related to the MCSO’s new Integrity,
Accountability and Community Initiative, for arrestees as they move through the booking
process at Central Intake.

•

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office – Detailed report covering veterans among the arrestee
population, combining core instrument data with data from the Veteran Addendum to assess
the particular needs and experiences of Maricopa County arrestees who are veterans.
1|Page

•

Office of the Public Defender – Assessment of use of force and perception of police among
selected special populations of Maricopa County arrestees, primarily drawing from the Police
Addendum data.

•

Adult Probation Department – Comprehensive summary of the core questionnaire comparing
Maricopa County probationers to probationers from elsewhere and those arrestees who have
not served probation.

•

Juvenile Probation Department - Comprehensive summary of the core juvenile questionnaire
comparing Maricopa County juvenile probationers to those who have served probation
elsewhere and those detainees who have not served probation.

For other reports and more information about the project, visit the AARIN page of the Center for
Violence Prevention & Community Safety’s website: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/.

Methodology: Sampling and Data Collection
In order to ensure representative results for the entire population of arrestees in Maricopa County, the
AARIN project employs a systematic sampling protocol that includes the collection of data with target
quotas each day. Data are collected during three cycles each calendar year – with interviews conducted
during a continuous two-week period at the Central Intake of Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail
each collection cycle. Dispersing data collection cycles across three different four-month blocks helps
control for possible seasonal variations in crime and arrest patterns, and conducting collections covering
all seven days of the week account for possible differences between weekdays and weekends, or other
day-to-day variations. The periodic data collection cycles combined with the sampling protocols ensures
a representative sample of all Maricopa County arrestees. The same procedures employed by AARIN
were tested under ADAM (Maricopa County was one of the sites used in the evaluation), comparing the
selected sample to comprehensive jail census data to assess the representativeness of the sample to the
population on key characteristics. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
was the national data manager for ADAM at the time and concluded that the periodic data collection
cycles, sampling protocols and daily quotas would result in a scientifically representative sample of
study participants that could be generalized to the whole of arrestees for the particular jurisdiction (i.e.
Maricopa County arrestees).
Daily collection quotas call for 23 males and 7 females to be interviewed, including the completion of
the core instrument, any and all addenda, and to provide a urine specimen. Potential participants are
selected using a standardized procedure (described below) to ensure both a sufficiently randomized and
representative sample of arrestees. Some of the potential participants are either unavailable or
otherwise ineligible for participation. Most commonly this applies to those arrestees who have already
been released from custody or transferred to another facility, but also includes those whose behavior
constitutes a safety risk to the jail and/or interview staff. Upon initial contact, arrestees are read an

2|Page

informed consent script (see inset), to which they voluntarily either decline or agree to participate;
typically more than 90% agree to participate.
Consent Script:
Hello, my name is __. I am working on a research project run by Arizona State University. The
purpose of the project is to understand issues and problems confronted by people and to help give
advice on how to provide services to individuals who have been arrested. I would like to ask you a
series of questions that will take 15-45 minutes to answer. There are no foreseeable risks for
participating in this research, and there are no benefits to you individually. Jail personnel will not
have access to the information that you provide us. The information you provide is confidential and
anonymous, and it will not help or hurt your case. If, for any reason, you become distressed or
anxious during the interview, you can request to speak with the facility’s medical personnel or
psychological counselors.
I will not write down your name or any other identifying information the questionnaire. You can
refuse to answer any question, and you may stop the interview at any time for any reason. At the
end of the interview I will ask you to provide a urine sample. If you listen to my questions, I will give
you a candy bar. Do you have any questions?
During the data collection period, interviews are conducted during an eight-hour period each day, with
arrestees who are randomly selected based on their booking time that yields a stratified random
sample. Consistent with the ADAM sampling strategy, a stock (i.e., arrested and booked during non-data
collection hours) and flow (i.e., during data collection hours) process is employed to ensure a
representative sample of arrestees across any given 24-hour period. The stock sample is selected by
starting with a list of all bookings processed from the 16 hours that range from when collection ended
the previous day through the start-time of the current collection day. Eligible bookings are counted and
divided by ten, which gives the selection interval. A random start-point is selected, and each nth (e.g.
the value equal to the selection interval) arrestee is selected as a potential participant. A “nearestneighbor” procedure is used to replace members of the stock list that are either found to be ineligible or
unavailable, or whom decline to participate, until the daily quota of 10 completed and provided
interviews is met. The flow sample is more straight-forward. Potential participants are randomly
selected as they are booked into the facility as needed. A minimum of 13 completed and provided
interviews are expected to meet daily quota.

Survey Instrument
The core AARIN survey instrument is modeled after the ADAM and Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)
instruments, and was developed with input from Maricopa County officials. Starting with the third
collection cycle of 2011, AARIN began using a new core instrument. The new instrument included the
same elements of the previous version, but expanded by more than 60%, following extensive input from
Maricopa County officials representing six key agencies related to the criminal justice system and the
arrestee population – the County Manager’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, County Attorney, Public Defender,
Adult Probation, and Juvenile Probation.
3|Page

The instrument is broken down into a variety of sections that include: demographics and background
information (sex, race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, educational level, methods of income), current and
past drug use (ever, past 12 months, 30 days and three days), drug dependency and treatment, medical
marijuana and marijuana acquisition, criminal history (ever, past 12 months), gang involvement,
firearms possession, victimization (past 12 months, 30 days), police interactions, mental health issues
(ever and past 12 months), correctional health services and public health concerns, and incarceration
and probation history (ever and past 12 months). Additionally, the AARIN platform includes addenda
instruments to the core set of questions. Addenda are used to collect more detailed information
regarding a particular topic and/or population. The collection cycle is based on a fiscal year, and the
reports using the most recently collected data were collected from September 2012 through June 2013.
During this collection year, both a police contact and a gang addenda were used, collecting information
from arrestees about police in general, use of force by and against the police (Police Contact
Addendum), reasons and methods for joining and leaving a gang, gang organizational structure and
criminal activities, and the respondents’ perceptions of cohesion and connectedness to their gang (Gang
Addendum). Additionally, for one collection period, a booking process addendum was used to provide
direct analysis of the principles and procedures outlined in the MCSO Integrity, Accountability and
Community Initiative.

Urinalysis Testing
Once an interview is completed, the arrestee then submits a urine sample. The urine specimens are
tested for alcohol and four illicit drugs: cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and opiates. The testing
is done using the enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT), which has shown a high degree of
accuracy with very few false-positive results (Reardon, 1993). As a reliability check, all specimens that
test positive with the EMIT methods are then tested again using Gas Chromatography with Mass
Spectrum Detection (GC/MS). The EMIT technique with GC/MS confirmation procedures are wellestablished and offer highly reliable results for the illicit drugs under study here – cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamine, and opiates – for up to 72 hours after use. Unfortunately, these procedures offer
high reliability results for alcohol for only 12-24 hours after use. The adoption of more sensitive alcohol
screening procedures was cost-prohibitive, however.

4|Page

Introduction to the County Attorney’s 2013 Report
The post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the longest sustained U.S. military operations
since the Vietnam War. More than 2.2 million troops have been sent into battle, resulting in more than
6,600 deaths and 48,000 injuries (Institute of Medicine, 2013). Over the last few years, hundreds of
thousands of veterans have returned home from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF; and now Operation New Dawn [OND]) – many after multiple tours in combat. Though
most veterans are able to re-adjust successfully, a recent study by the Institute of Medicine (2013)
found that 44% of returning veterans reported post-deployment difficulties. The report notes that:
Significant numbers of personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered traumatic
brain injuries (TBI) and many have shown symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
depression, and substance misuse or abuse… These military and veteran personnel often have
more than one health condition. The most common overlapping health disorders are PTSD,
substance use disorders, depression, and symptoms attributed to mild TBI (Institute of
Medicine, 2013: 2).
The common signs and symptoms of these war-related conditions include: cognitive issues such as
decreased attention span, lack of motivation, irritability, depression and anxiety, increased fatigue,
headaches, memory loss or disturbance, disrupted sleep, and behavioral issues. Perhaps not
surprisingly, the symptoms associated with these combat-related injuries may also lead to anti-social
behavior that draws the attention of the police, and often results in arrest and incarceration.
In recognition of this problem, many jurisdictions across the United States have created specialized
Veterans Courts, which employ a drug court-adapted therapeutic approach to funnel justice systeminvolved veterans to counseling and support services that are closely monitored by the court. Baldwin’s
(2013) recent national survey identified 114 Veterans Treatment Courts across the United States. VTCs
provide a wide range of services to criminal justice-involved veterans, from mental health and substance
abuse treatment to vocational, housing and transportation services (Baldwin, 2013).
Despite the emergence of VTCs, little is known regarding the prevalence of military veterans in the
criminal justice system, the nature of their cases and prior experiences, as well how combat-related
conditions such as PTSD or TBI may have contributed to their involvement in the system. Noting that in
previous wars veterans’ requests for services (e.g., disability, treatment) peaked more than 30 years
after discharge, Baldwin (2013: 2) concluded the “United States is at the very start of what will likely be
a decades-long engagement with returning OIF/OEF/OND veterans.” As a result, information on issues
surrounding criminal justice-involved veterans is important for those seeking to facilitate returning
veterans’ readjustment to civilian life (e.g., Veterans Affairs), as well as for both criminal justice policy
and practice and the continuing development of VTCs.
This report seeks to address the knowledge gap in this area through an examination of 1,370 recently
booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. Using interview data from the Arizona Arrestee
Reporting Information Network (AARIN), the report characterizes the problems and prior experiences of
5|Page

military veterans, and compares veteran and nonveteran arrestees along a range of demographic,
background and criminal behavior measures. The overall objectives of the report are to provide an
ongoing estimate of the prevalence of military veterans in the Maricopa County arrestee population and
to assess the extent to which the arrested veterans differ from the larger arrestee population.

Methodology
The present study used interview data obtained from 1,370 recently booked adult male and female
arrestees at the Maricopa County, Arizona as part of the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information
Network (AARIN). The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors established AARIN in January 2007 to
monitor drug use trends, treatment needs, and at-risk behavior among recently booked arrestees in
Maricopa County. Each calendar quarter, professionally trained local staff conduct voluntary and
anonymous interviews with adult males and females who have been arrested within the past 48 hours.
AARIN serves as a near-real time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse and related
activity in Maricopa County, AZ. This information helps to inform policy and practice among police,
courts and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals who find
themselves in the criminal justice system.
The AARIN instruments underwent a substantial revision in 2011. While maintaining all of the data
elements from the previous core set of questions, the baseline interview expanded by more than 60%.
Additionally, with the change in the core questionnaire, the project shifted its reporting strategy to
focus reports to each of six key Maricopa County criminal justice agencies: Maricopa County Manager’s
Office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Public
Defender, Adult Probation Department, and the Juvenile Probation Department. The current report,
examining the prevalence of veterans in the jail system (and their problems) has been produced at the
request of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
The current report includes information collected from the core AARIN instrument, as well as a
Veterans’ addendum. The core instrument collects a wide range of information on each arrestee,
including demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), criminal activity, gang affiliation,
victimization, mental health, citizenship and treatment experiences. Each interviewee also provides a
urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs.
For those respondents who identified themselves as veterans, questions were asked about whether
they served in a combat zone (and specifically, Iraq or Afghanistan), the branch of service, length of
service and discharge, and the nature of their discharge. Additional questions asked whether they
suffered a physical injury during their service, and if so, the type of injury. Finally, respondents were
asked if they had been diagnosed or treated for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), another mental
health problem, or a substance abuse problem since their military service. If the respondent indicated
they had been diagnosed or treated for each of those conditions, they were asked about the type of
treatment received. They were also asked to explain why they had not sought treatment, if that were
the case.
6|Page

Findings
Among the 1,370 completed interviews, there were 74 respondents who reported being a military
veteran (5.4%). Exhibit 1 shows the characteristics of the participating arrestee sample, specifically
comparing veterans and non-veterans. There were a few notable differences between veterans and
non-veterans. Veterans were predominantly white (62.2% of veterans compared to 46.8% of nonveterans) and male (91.9% compared to 75.5% for non-veterans). Veterans were more likely to have
achieved post high school education. Specifically, only 5.4% of veterans reported less than high school
education (compared to 32.6% of non-veterans), and more than 60% reported post high school
education (compared to just 32.4% for non-veterans).
Residency in the past 30 days was similar for the two groups, with the vast majority living in private
residences. From 10-14% of each group reported no fixed residence (i.e., living on the street). Nonveterans were slightly more likely than veterans to have been working full or part time in the month
prior to their arrest (52.8% vs. 46.0%, respectively), though non-veterans were also nearly three times as
likely to report receiving no income – 11.4% compared to only 4.1% for veterans. Alternatively, more
than one-quarter of veterans (25.7%) indicated that they had received income from family or other legal
sources, compared to 14.9% for non-veterans. Last, veterans were, on average, quite a bit older (40.9
years) than non-veterans (31.9 years). Exhibit 2 shows a comparison of veterans and non-veterans
across selected demographic and background characteristics.
Exhibit 1. Selected Characteristics of the Arrestee Population by Veteran Status

100

91.9

90
80

75.5

70

62.2

60.8

60
46.8

50
40

31.6

32.6

35.033.8

32.4

30
20

12.910.8

17.6
5.4

10
0
Male

Caucasian

African
American

Hispanic

Non-Veteran

Did not High School Post High
Graduate
Diploma
School
H.S.
Veteran

7|Page

Exhibit 2: Characteristics of the Arrestee Population by Veteran Status
No
Have you ever served in the United States
Military?

%

n

94.6

1296

Non-Veteran
%
n
Gender*
Male
Female
Race/Ethnicity*
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Other
Education*
Did not Graduate H.S.
High School Diploma
Post High School
Residence last 30 days
Private Residence
Public or Group Housing
Incarcerated
Shelter
No Fixed Residence
Other
Income last 30 days*
Work Full Time
Work Part Time
Welfare
Family or other legal sources
Prostitution/drug dealing
Other illegal sources
No income
Age (Mean) *
* p<.05

Yes
%

n

Total
%
n

5.4

74

100

Veteran
%
n

1370

Total
%
n

75.5
24.5

978
318

91.9
8.1

68
6

76.4
23.6

1046
324

46.8
12.9
31.6
8.6
%

607
167
409
113
n

62.2
10.8
17.6
9.5
%

46
8
13
7
%

47.7
12.8
30.8
8.8
n

653
175
422
120
%

32.6
35.0
32.4

418
450
416

5.4
33.8
60.8

4
25
45

31.1
35.0
33.9

422
475
461

87.1
1.1
0.4
0.4
10.8
0.2

1128
14
5
5
140
3

83.8
1.4
1.4
0.0
13.5
0.0

62
1
1
0
10
0

86.9
1.1
0.4
0.4
11.0
0.2

1190
15
6
5
150
3

34.5
18.3
9.0
14.9
6.6
5.3
11.4

434
230
113
188
83
67
143

31.1
14.9
20.3
25.7
2.7
1.4
4.1

23
11
15
19
2
1
3

34.3
18.1
9.6
15.5
6.4
5.1
11.0

457
241
128
207
85
68
146

31.9

40.9

32.4

8|Page

Characteristics of Veterans’ Service

Exhibit 3 shows some basic characteristics of the veteran respondents’ military service. 1 The table shows
the distribution of their branch and length of service, whether they were active duty or not, time since
discharge, and the nature of discharge. About one-half served in the Army (49.3%), one-fifth in the Navy
(18.3%). Most were active duty (87.3%). Approximately two-thirds of the veterans in our sample served
four years or less (69.1%), and three-quarters had been discharged five years or more ago (76.6%). More
than 90% received an honorable or general discharge.
Exhibit 3: Characteristics of Veterans Service
%

n

49.3
18.3
8.5
22.5
1.4
4.2

35
13
6
16
1
3

87.3
9.9
1.4
1.4

62
7
1
1

How long did you serve?
Less than 1 Year
1 - 2 Years
3 - 4 Years
5 - 10 Years
More than 10 years

2.9
26.5
39.7
19.1
11.8

2
18
27
13
8

How long ago were you discharged?
Less than 1 Year
1 - 2 Years
3 - 4 Years
5 - 10 Years
More than 10 years

6.3
6.3
10.9
21.9
54.7

4
4
7
14
35

Describe the nature of your discharge?
Honorable
General
Other than Honorable
Bad Conduct
Dishonorable

83.1
10.8
4.6
0.0
1.5

54
7
3
0
1

In which branch of service?
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
National Guard
In which component did you serve
Active Duty
Reserves
National Guard
Other

1

Although 74 arrestees reporting being a military veteran, only 71 completed the AARIN Veterans’ addendum.

9|Page

Exhibit 4 shows the characteristics of the veterans’ time in service, including whether they served in a
combat zone (specifically, Iraq or Afghanistan since September 11, 2001), whether they were physically
injured, and whether they have been diagnosed or treated for particular problems since their service.
Though almost half had served in a combat zone (46.5%), just less than one-third of veterans in our
sample had served in Iraq or Afghanistan post-9/11 (29.6%). Problems associated with their military
service were relatively common, however. More than one-third had been physically injured (36.6%),
28.2% had been diagnosed or treated for PTSD, 20.0% had been diagnosed or treated for another
mental health problem, and 21.4% had been diagnosed or treated for a substance abuse problem since
their military service.
Of the respondents who had been injured, the most common injuries involved the legs (59.3%) and the
head (40.7%). More than half of injured veterans indicated that they had some difficulty or had fared
poorly after their injury (52.2%). Taken together, 37 of the 71 veterans in this study (52.1%) reported to
have at least one of the above problems or issues (see Exhibit 5 for selected findings). Notably, most of
the veteran arrestees who self-reported a problem also indicated that they had received treatment for
that problem: 19 of 20 had received treatment for PTSD; 12 of 14 had received treatment for another
mental health problem; and 13 of 15 had received substance abuse treatment.
Exhibit 4: Characteristics of Veterans Time in Service
No
%
n
53.
38
5

Yes
%
n
46.
33
5

Did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001?

70.
4

50

29.
6

Were you physically injured during military service?

63.
4

45

Have you been diagnosed or treated for PTSD since your military
service?

71.
8

Have you been diagnosed or treated for mental health problem
other than PTSD since your military service?
Have you been diagnosed or treated for substance abuse?

Did you ever serve in a combat zone?

Total
%
n
100.0

71

21

100.0

71

36.
6

26

100.0

71

51

28.
2

20

100.0

71

80

56

20

14

100.0

70

78.
6

55

21.
4

15

100.0

70

10 | P a g e

Exhibit 5: Selected Characteristics of Veterans Time in Service

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

36.6
29.6

Served in
Physically
Iraq /
Injured
Afghanistan

28.2

PTSD

20

21.4

Mental
Health
Problem

Substance
Abuse

Drug Use by Veteran Status
The AARIN instrument collects self-reported drug use information over the past month and year, as well
as drug test results from urine specimens collected at the time of the interview. Drug use was common
among the veteran arrestees. Approximately 52% reported any drug use during the past year, and 40.8%
reported any drug use in the past 30 days. About half of veteran arrestees tested positive for an illegal
substance at the time of the interview. These drug use rates, however, were significantly lower than
non-veteran arrestees.
Exhibit 6 below shows 12-month, 30-day, and urinalyses for marijuana, crack cocaine, powder cocaine,
methamphetamine, and opiates by veteran status. Past 12 month drug use was dissimilar among
veterans and non-veterans. Specifically, we found that veterans reported lower rates of marijuana use
(39.2% compared to 52.2% for non-veterans), cocaine use (2.7% compared to 10.3% for non-veterans),
methamphetamine use (14.9% compared to 31.2% for non-veterans), and opiate use (4.1% compared to
12.0% for non-veterans). The differences persisted for the 30-day self-report measure, for all four drugs.
The significant differences in drug use persisted with urinalysis results, with veterans showing much
lower rates of use than non-veterans (marijuana, 22.5% vs. 37.4%; methamphetamine, 16.9% vs. 32.7%;
and opiates, 1.4% vs. 13.1%).

11 | P a g e

Exhibit 6: Drug Use by Veteran Status
Non-Veteran
%
n

Veteran
%
n

Total
%
n

Marijuana
Past 12 Months*
Past 30 Days*
Urinalysis*

52.2
41.8
37.4

677
539
452

39.2
29.7
22.5

29
22
16

51.5
41.2
36.5

706
561
468

Powder Cocaine
Past 12 Months*
Past 30 Days*
Urinalysis

10.3
5.5
6.8

134
71
82

2.7
0.0
2.8

2
0
2

9.9
5.2
6.6

136
71
84

Crack Cocaine
Past 12 Months
Past 30 Days
Urinalysis

4.9
3.5
6.8

63
45
82

5.4
1.4
2.8

4
1
2

4.9
3.4
6.6

67
46
84

Methamphetamine
Past 12 Months*
Past 30 Days*
Urinalysis*

31.2
27.0
32.7

404
350
396

14.9
13.5
16.9

11
10
12

30.3
26.3
31.8

415
360
408

Opiates
Past 12 Months*
Past 30 Days*
Urinalysis*

12.0
10.0
13.1

156
130
159

4.1
2.7
1.4

3
2
1

11.6
9.6
12.5

159
132
160

* p<.05

12 | P a g e

Offense Severity by Veteran Status
Exhibits 7 and 8 below show the most serious type of offense on the current arrest by veteran status.
Approximately 20% of veterans were arrested for violent charges, and 24.3% were arrested for property
charges. An additional 23% were arrested on drug charges, and nearly one-third were arrested for
miscellaneous offenses (32.4%), including disorderly conduct, failure to appear/pay fines, driving on a
suspended license, and probation violations. The current offense was similar among veteran and nonveteran arrestees, though veterans were slightly less likely to be arrested on drug charges (23.0% vs.
27.8%). Veteran and non-veteran arrestees also had similar mean number of prior arrests over the past
year (1.32 and 1.03).
Exhibit 7: Current Charge and Arrest History by Status
Non-Veteran
Veteran
%
n
%
n
Violent
18.9
245
20.3
15
Drug
27.8
360
23.0
17
Property
22.6
293
24.3
18
Other
30.6
396
32.4
24
Mean # Arrests

1.03

1.32

Total
%
n
19.0
260
27.6
377
22.7
311
30.7
420
1.05

* p<.05
Exhibit 8: Current Charge Category of Offense by Status
35

32.4
30.6

30

27.8

25
20

23.0
18.9

24.3
22.6

20.3

15
10
5
0
Violent

Drug
Non-Veteran

Property

Other

Veteran

13 | P a g e

Gang Involvement by Veteran Status
Exhibit 9 shows prior and current gang involvement among arrestees, and there are a few differences
among veteran and non-veterans. Approximately 93% of veteran arrestees have no history of gang
involvement, compared to 82.5% of non-veterans. About 4% of non-veteran arrestees report being a
current gang member, and 8.2% reported being a gang associate. An additional 5.5% stated that they
were a former gang member. Among veteran arrestees, two reported being a gang associate (2.7%) and
three reported former gang membership (4.1%). There were no veteran arrestees who reported current
gang membership.
Exhibit 9: Gang Membership by Veteran Status
Non-Veteran
%
n
Non-Gang Member
Gang Associate
Current Gang Member
Former Gang Member

82.5
8.2
3.8
5.5

Veteran
%
n

1063
105
49
71

93.2
2.7
0
4.1

69
2
0
3

Total
%

n

83.1
7.9
3.6
5.4

1132
107
49
74

Victimization by Veteran Status
Exhibits 10 and 11 display whether the respondent reported having been the victim of a violent crime
during the past 12 months. The three categories of victimization are constructed from five questions: 1)
have you been threatened with a gun; 2) have you been shot at; 3) have you been shot; 4) have you
been threatened with a weapon other than a gun; 5) have you been assaulted or attacked without a
weapon.
Among veterans, 10.8% reported being a victim of a firearm-related crime in the past 12 months, and
12.2% reported being victimized with another type of weapon (compared to 18.9% and 14.8%,
respectively, for non-veterans). Assault rates were similar for veteran and non-veteran arrestees (18.8%
and 18.9%).
Exhibit 10: Victimization by Status

Victimized Past 12 Months
Gun Crime
Non-Gun Weapons Crime
Assaulted or Attacked

Non-Veteran
%
n

Veteran
%
n

18.9
14.8
18.8

10.8
12.2
18.9

245
192
243

8
9
14

Total
%
n
18.5
14.7
18.8

253
201
257

* p<.05
14 | P a g e

Exhibit 11: Victimization by Status

20

18.9

18.8

18.9

18
16

14.8

14
12

12.2
10.8

10
8
6
4
2
0
Gun Crime

Non-Gun Weapons
Crime

Non-Veteran

Assaulted or Attacked

Veteran

Mental Health by Veteran Status
Exhibit 12 shows four different measures of mental health status: have you ever been told you have a
mental illness, and have you ever been treated, prescribed medication and hospitalized for a mental
illness. Veteran arrestees have higher rates on all four of these measures, but none of the differences
are statistically significant. One-third of veteran arrestees report having been told that they have a
mental illness, and have been treated for a mental illness (32.4% and 33.8%, respectively), compared to
29.7% and 24.5% for non-veteran arrestees. Approximately 28% of veteran arrestees report having been
prescribed medication for a mental health problem, compared to 21.6% of non-veterans. Last, 13.5% of
veteran arrestees report having been hospitalized for mental illness, compared to 9.5% of non-veterans.
Exhibit 12: Mental Health by Status

Ever…
Told you have a mental illness
Treated for a mental illness
Prescribed medication
Hospitalized for a mental illness

Non-Veteran
%
n

Veteran
%
n

29.7
24.5
21.6
9.5

32.4
33.8
28.4
13.5

385
317
280
123

24
25
21
10

Total
%
n
29.9
25
22
9.7

409
342
301
133

* p<.05
15 | P a g e

Conclusion
This report presents information obtained from interviews of 1,370 recently booked arrestees in
Maricopa County, Arizona, as part of the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN). The
objective of this report is to provide basic information on the prevalence of military veterans in the
arrestee population, as well as background information on their military service, demographics, and
service-related problems. The report also provides comparisons of veteran and non-veteran arrestees
along these measures.
Approximately 5% of the arrestees interviewed were military veterans. The veteran arrestees were
primarily older white males who were better-educated and more likely to be employed (compared to
other arrestees). Though veteran arrestees had slightly higher rates of mental health problems, they
were less likely than other arrestees to use drugs and to be associated with a gang. Veteran and nonveteran arrestees were similar in terms of their current arrest charge, their recent criminal history, and
their rates of victimization.
A majority of veteran arrestees were discharged from the military more than a decade ago – though
about 30% had served in the post 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than half of the veteran
arrestees have problems either directly or indirectly related to their military service including physical
injuries, PTSD, other mental health issues and substance abuse (that were diagnosed after their
discharge). Importantly, nearly all of the veteran arrestees who stated that they suffered from one of
these problems had also received treatment for the problem.

A Brief Note on Trends from 2010-2013
This 2013 report is a follow-up to a similar report authored in 2010, which allows for examination of
trends over time. The findings described in the current report are distinctive from the 2010 report in a
number of ways.


The percentage of arrestees who report being a military veteran has declined slightly, from 6.3%
to 5.4%. Recent US Census data indicate that veterans make up approximately 7.3% of the
Maricopa County population (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04013.html). As a
result, the findings here suggest that veterans are slightly under-represented in the Maricopa
County arrestee population.



In the 2010 report, the author suggested that the proportion of veterans in the criminal justice
system would actually increase, perhaps substantially, because of 1) the influx of veterans
returning from the post-9/11 wars; and 2) the problems associated with service in a combat
zone. This predicted trend has not occurred however. The reasons for this finding are not
known, but the increased availability of support services for returning veterans is one potential
explanation. Another potential explanation involves the length of time that passes before
veterans begin to experience service-related problems. Notably, 76% of the veterans in this
study were discharged from the service more than five years ago. It may be that, for many
veterans, service-related problems do not manifest for several years (e.g., more than five years).
16 | P a g e

Examination of the trends described in this report over the next few years will shed light on this
issue.


The veterans described in the current study were similar to the veterans in the 2010 study in
many respects (age, sex, education, employment), though the current sample is slightly less
racially/ethnically diverse (62% Caucasian, compared to 55% in 2010). It is notable that
homelessness has almost doubled for both veteran and non-veteran arrestees, from 2010 to
2013.



The veteran sample in the 2010 report was distinctive from other arrestees in several ways:
greater use of crack cocaine and heroin; greater likelihood of victimization; and greater
likelihood of violent charges. All of these veteran/non-veteran differences have disappeared in
the current study. Violent charges, victimization, drug use, and gang affiliation are all less
frequent among the veterans in the current study, compared to the 2010 report.



The nature and characteristics of military service have changed little from the 2010 report to the
current report, with one notable exception: the percentage of veterans who served in the post9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The percentage of post-9/11 war veterans has nearly
doubled, from 16.4% to 29.6%.



Veterans continue to struggle with problems tied either directly or indirectly to their military
service. In the 2010 report, just over half of veteran arrestees had experienced one or more of
the following: physical injuries, PTSD, another mental health problem, and substance abuse.
That rate remains unchanged in the current report.

Continued study over time will shed light on the persistence of military veterans in the arrestee
population, as well as the severity of the problems.

17 | P a g e

References
Baldwin, J.M. (2013). Executive Summary: National Survey of Veterans Treatment Courts.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274138.
Institute of Medicine. (2013). Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of the
Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and their Families. Washington, DC: Institute
of Medicien of the National Academies.
White, M.D. (2009). The Prevalence and Problems of Military Veterans in the Maricopa County Arrestee
Population. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State
University.

18 | P a g e

About the Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University, in order to deepen its commitment to the communities of Arizona and to society
as a whole, has set a new standard for research universities, as modeled by the New American University.
Accordingly, ASU is measured not by whom we exclude, but by whom we include.
The University is pursuing research that considers the public good and is assuming a greater responsibility to
our communities for economic, social, and cultural vitality. Social embeddedness – university-wide, interactive,
and mutually-supportive partnerships with Arizona communities – is at the core of our development as a New
American University.
Toward the goal of social embeddedness, in response to the growing need of our communities to improve
the public’s safety and well-being, in July 2005 ASU established the Center for Violence Prevention and
Community Safety. The Center’s mission is to generate, share, and apply quality research and knowledge to
create “best practice” standards.
Specifically, the Center evaluates policies and programs; analyzes and evaluates patterns and causes of
violence; develops strategies and programs; develops a clearinghouse of research reports and “best practice”
models; educates, trains, and provides technical assistance; and facilitates the development and construction
of databases.
For more information about the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, please contact us using
the information provided below.

MAILING ADDRESS

Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety
College of Public Programs
Arizona State University
Mail Code 3120
500 N. 3rd Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2135

PHONE

602.496.1470

WEB SITE

http://cvpcs.asu.edu