VA criticized for improper use of its police force

There have been reports of harmful and unnecessary interactions, including violence, between the police force of the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] and veterans. These exchanges are potentially significant barriers to veterans seeking healthcare and refuge at VA facilities.

First there were hotline complaints about the use of police by the VA. Those complaints triggered an investigation by the Inspector General [IG], the entity dedicated to government oversight, combating fraud, waste, and abuse, and improving government programs. The IG's report about the VA's police force critiques the lack of guidance to and control of the police force by the VA.

Following the IG's report, there were three reports issued by the National Association of Minority Veterans of America [NAMVETS] and law students at the UCLA Veterans Legal Clinic. NAMVETS is a non-profit focused on serving minority veterans, but is generally dedicated to ensuring that all veterans receive equal access to VA healthcare and benefits. The UCLA Veterans Legal Clinic provides legal services and advocates on behalf of particularly vulnerable veterans in Los Angeles. The NAMVETS/UCLA reports criticize improper tactics used by police on veterans of color and veterans who are homeless, mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable.

The VA's police force

The Veterans Affairs Police Department, VAPD, is within the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is one of the ten largest federal administrative law enforcement agencies in the country. The VAPD's authority is granted under 38 U.S.C. §§ 901 and 902.

The roots of the VAPD can be traced to the Lincoln administration in March 1865. The first official force within the VA, known as Guards, was authorized in 1882. Drunkenness, fighting, violation of passes, profanity, disorderly conduct, and creating a nuisance were the most common offenses. For more serious crimes, veterans were often assigned to "dump duty." In the 19th century, "dump duty" meant emptying and cleaning cuspidors, bedpans, and picking up trash from the grounds. 

Over the decades, the footprints of police at VA facilities have grown considerably. Guards were elevated to full police status during the 1970s.

In 1989, the VA transferred its police to a newly created department-level program called the Office of Security and Law Enforcement. Local leaders assumed the responsibility for overseeing police operations at their facilities.

Today, the VAPD is charged with enforcing federal laws and rules promulgated by the Secretary of the VA pursuant to the statute [see 38 C.F.R. § 1.218]. The VAPD has approximately 4,000 police officers and it primarily patrols Veteran Health Administration facilities. The VAPD is fully armed and authorized to carry firearms any time and any place they are acting in their official capacity. Besides carrying firearms, VAPD forces use canine units on VA campuses.

Why the VA needs a police force

The Secretary of the VA has the authority and responsibility to protect patients, visitors, employees and VA property. There are about seven million patients receiving VA care and over 388,000 employees at the 1,200 healthcare facilities. Police are needed to investigate criminal activity and to arrest individuals on and off VA property for offenses committed within the VA's jurisdiction.

The VAPD also manages traffic and controls parking on VA property. Its officers provide assistance to patients, visitors and employees and manage physical security.

The Inspector General's 2018 report

The IG received hotline complaints about the sufficiency of police officer staffing and inappropriate conduct while performing police duties.

The IG's audit revealed the VA did not have adequate and coordinated governance over its police program to ensure effective management and oversight at its facilities. According to the IG, the governance problems stemmed from confusion about police roles and authority, and a lack of centralized management or clearly designated staff to manage and oversee the police program.

The IG made five recommendations. The first is that the Secretary of the VA clarify responsibilities and evaluate the need for centralized management of the VAPD. The second recommendation has to do with adequate staffing. The third urges the recruiting of qualified persons for the VAPD. The fourth suggests regular assessments and inspections of the VAPD by the Secretary. Lastly, the IG proposes the Secretary develop procedures for VAPD investigations.

The 2020 NAMVETS/UCLA report

Two years after the IG audit and report, NAMVETS and the UCLA students reported that harmful and unnecessary interactions with the VAPD, including police violence against veterans continued. The 2020 report is primarily advisory. It recommends Congress and the VA investigate excessive force, biased policing, surveillance tactics and other problematic practices involving veterans of color and veterans who are homeless, mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable.

NAMVETS documents examples of the VAPD targeting Black veterans. It charges that the VAPD scrutinizes and surveils Black veterans more heavily, stating they receive a greater number of traffic violations and are more likely to experience force than White veterans.

With regard to homeless veterans, the report states that veterans who live in their vehicles are required to justify their presence on VA property in a manner the general public is not. It points out that VAPD officers are authorized to question the occupants of vehicles parked on VA campuses during non-visitation hours and direct their removal when occupants cannot present a valid reason for their presence on VA property. The authors note this policy potentially exacerbates the over-policing that unhoused communities already experience.

Regarding profiling, the 2020 report points out a data gap vis-à-vis the socioeconomic or racial composition of veterans arrested, ticketed or otherwise engaged with the VAPD. The authors express concern that harmful interactions with the VAPD disproportionally impact minority veterans due to biased and potentially violent experiences.

The principal advice of the authors of the report is that the VA should seek to transform VA campuses into sanctuaries where veterans can seek refuge from the challenges they face after serving their country. It also advises ending harmful or unnecessary interactions between the VAPD and veterans, including reducing the size and statutory authority of the VAPD.

The 2021 NAMVETS/UCLA report

The second NAMVETS/UCLA report was issued in 2021. The authors were able to access documents from four VA health care facilities through the Freedom of Information Act. One of those facilities is in Los Angeles.

The 2021 report stresses how much the VAPD is deployed to respond to behavioral health crises. The authors think that the VA should utilize its resources to hire social workers and health care professionals who understand the unique needs of the veteran population rather than having police in hospital settings.

Horace Walker, Jr., director of NAMVETS and a veteran, is quoted: "This report confirms what Black veterans know police are doing at VA hospitals. Police treat us like we don't belong in a health care system that was specifically designed to support veterans. We need a safe haven, not police escorts or firearms."

The primary recommendation of the 2021 NAMVETS/UCLA report is removal of police from behavioral health involvement.

The 2024 NAMVETS/UCLA report

The third NAMVETS/UCLA report was issued in 2024. This report stresses how VAPD officers' over-involvement in VA healthcare leads to violent interactions between the VAPD and veterans seeking services on VA campuses.

According to the 2024 report, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian veterans are more likely to rely on VA benefits than their White counterparts. Police practices, the report states, create barriers to providing necessary care for veterans.

The authors were able to review police reports, but with some limitations as they were heavily redacted by the VA before they were produced. Some had entire pages redacted. Just as the 2024 report was to be released, NAMVETS/UCLA obtained a court order involving improper redactions, and another report concerning the redactions will be forthcoming. Additionally, the reports only contain an officer's account, but not the veteran's account.

Drug and alcohol incidents involved the VAPD in many incidents, despite the fact that the VA recognizes substance use as a health concern, especially in the relationship between substance use and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.

One police report concerned an incident in the West Los Angeles "Welcome Center," which the VA describes as a safe space for veterans to receive care and the first step in the journey out of homelessness for veterans struggling with addiction. A veteran was reportedly using drugs in the bathroom of the Welcome Center. Despite the promise of a safe space, the veteran was issued citations for drug possession and trespass. The 2024 NAMVETS/UCLA report states that policing veterans for struggling with addiction undermines the Welcome Center's stated goal.

Another incident in Los Angeles involved a Hispanic veteran who had a plan to kill himself. He was intoxicated and yelled at the security guards. While the VAPD took him to the emergency room for treatment when he disclosed he was suicidal, they also issued him two citations. Thus, a suicidal veteran was required to attend court appearances and was subjected to potential fines.

Also in Los Angeles, a homeless veteran with behavioral health problems stated he was in a VA locker room because he was a CIA agent on a national security mission. He was handcuffed and cited for loitering.

Still another incident in Los Angeles involved a veteran sleeping in a VA facility. When the VAPD woke him up, he explained he was waiting for his prescription to be filled. Police twice pepper sprayed and then handcuffed him after the veteran wielded a plastic knife, the kind commonly distributed in fast food restaurants.

Yet another Los Angeles incident involved a man wearing VA patient pajamas who was found at a VA campus bus stop by a VAPD officer on patrol. The officer ran a warrant check and found the veteran had a misdemeanor warrant for trespassing. Santa Monica police were unwilling to pick up the veteran, so the VAPD contacted the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who booked the veteran for the trespassing warrant. The 2024 NAMVETS/UCLA report states that despite the fact the veteran was using or had likely used VA medical services recently [the VA pajamas], the VAPD had him arrested.

Conclusion

The NAMVETS/UCLA authors recommend fewer police and more health care specialists. That makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking part of this situation is that the property in Los Angeles where some mentally ill veterans are supposedly violating rules by simply being there, was bequeathed to house disabled veterans in 1888. Instead of giving disabled veterans a home, the VA has leased the land, turning it into a profit center.

The full reports may be found at: https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/archive/17559/VAOIG-17-01007-01.pdf; https://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Clinical/NAMVETS-UCLawVetPolicingRpt.pdf; https://law.ucla.edu/news/veterans-legal-clinic-issues-report-vapd-incidents; https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/report/unmasking-policing-in-veterans-healthcare

In a former life, Justice Eileen Moore served as a combat nurse in Vietnam in the Army Nurse Corps. She was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Cross of Gallantry with Palm. She is a member of Vietnam Veterans of America. Since 2008, she has chaired the Judicial Council' Veterans and Military Families Subcommittee. She is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice, the Veterans Justice Commission, an advisor to the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Armed Forces Law, an advisor to the California Lawyers Association's Military and Veterans Committee and the Orange County Veterans & Military Committee as well as a founding member of USVets' Women's Advisory Committee. She is the author of two award-winning books, Race Results and Gender Results.