Legal Services for Veterans (LSV): Protocol for Evaluating the Grant-Based LSV Initiative Supporting Community Organizations’ Delivery of Legal Services to Veterans

Abstract: Background: 1.8 million Veterans are estimated to need legal services, such as for housing eviction prevention, discharge upgrades, and state and federal Veterans benefits. While having one's legal needs met is known to improve one's health and its social determinants, many Veterans' legal needs remain unmet. Public Law 116-315 enacted in 2021 authorizes VA to fund legal services for Veterans (LSV) by awarding grants to legal service providers including nonprofit organizations and law schools' legal assistance programs. This congressionally mandated LSV initiative will award grants to about 75 competitively selected entities providing legal services. This paper describes the protocol for evaluating the initiative. The evaluation will fulfill congressional reporting requirements, and inform continued implementation and sustainment of LSV over time. Methods: Our protocol calls for a prospective, mixed-methods observational study with a repeated measures design, aligning to the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) frameworks. In 2023, competitively selected legal services-providing organizations will be awarded grants to implement LSV. The primary outcome will be the number of Veterans served by LSV in the 12 months after the awarding of the grant. The evaluation has three Aims. Aim 1 will focus on measuring primary and secondary LSV implementation outcomes aligned to RE-AIM. Aim 2 will apply the mixed quantitative-qualitative Matrixed Multiple Case Study method to identify patterns in implementation barriers, enablers, and other i-PARIHS-aligned factors that relate to observed outcomes. Aim 3 involves a mixed-methods economic evaluation to understand the costs and benefits of LSV implementation. Discussion: The LSV initiative is a new program that VA is implementing to help Veterans who need legal assistance. To optimize ongoing and future implementation of this program, it is important to rigorously evaluate LSV's outcomes, barriers and enablers, and costs and benefits. We have outlined the protocol for such an evaluation, which will lead to recommending strategies and resource allocation for VA's LSV implementation.

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Policy & Practice

    Medical discharge from the UK Armed Forces and the role of combat injury: A short report from the ADVANCE-INVEST study

    The recent conflict in Afghanistan resulted in hundreds of serious injuries to UK Armed Forces personnel, necessitating their aeromedical evacuation. Due to the nature of their injuries, many individuals have been medically discharged from the Armed Forces. Using both quantitative and qualitative data from the ADVANCE and ADVANCE-INVEST studies, this report investigates the outcomes and experiences of those who were medically discharged, with a focus on those with combat injuries. The ADVANCE-INVEST study, a sub-study of ADVANCE, is a mixed-methods investigation of transition experiences and outcomes for those with combat injuries arising from the conflict in Afghanistan, funded by Forces in Mind Trust. The study used questionnaire data from over 500 ex-Service personnel who had sustained combat injuries, as well as 28 in-depth interviews regarding their perceptions and experiences of transition in the context of their injuries. Most participants who sustained a combat injury left the military via a medical discharge. Some of those who were medically discharged experienced an abrupt ending to their career and life in the military, contrary to their ambitions and expectations of a long career in Service. This was also true of those who believed the military would retain them in spite of the seriousness of their injuries and did not anticipate a medical discharge. The difficulties that some participants felt in relation to the rapid ending of their military career was exacerbated by a perceived lack of collaboration with the military regarding their leaving, something they felt they had little, or no, control over. The abrupt ending to their service was felt to be compounded by a lack of communication from their former military chain of command after they had left.UK Armed Forces personnel who were medically discharged were eligible for the highest level of support provided by resettlement services for their transition. Nonetheless they had lower rates of post-Service employment compared to those who left via other methods of discharge. This could have been due to the nature of their injuries; however, participants also reported a lack of tailored careers advice specific to the challenges they faced related to their injury. The pace at which participants engaged with future career planning was varied, and existing structures did not always have the flexibility to match the needs of the injured person. Transfer of medical records was still reported as being inconsistent, with some complaints of civilian medical practitioners being unable to access their full medical details, forcing injured personnel to retell their medical histories many times. Compensation for injuries was welcomed and could be seen to have benefits beyond merely the immediate material benefit to the injured person; for example, it provided acknowledgement of their injury, a buffer while seeking re-employment in the civilian job market and supported a healthy worklife balance in the context of ongoing pain and medical issues. Conversely, problems could occur when payment amounts and transfer dates were unknown, when a lack of tailored financial advice was provided, and/or when poor financial decisions were made. Some participants were engaged in lengthy tribunal processes to claim compensation, particularly those who were injured but did not sustain limb loss; these processes were emotionally demanding for them. Based upon our findings, a summary of our recommendations and the audiences they are aimed at is given.

    Mental Health Physical Health