Policy Analysis Writing Sample_WalkerB

RUNNING HEAD: MILITARY MENTAL HEALTH STIGMA 1
Mental Health Stigma in the Military: Unemployment Rates among OEF/OIF Veterans
Brian E. Walker
SCWK8851, Prof. Allison Bauer
Policy Analysis & Research for Social Reform
Boston College Graduate School of Social Work

Problem Definition: Unemployment rates among OEF/OIF Veterans tied to mental health
stigma
Since 2001, approximately 1.64 million U.S. service members have deployed in support
of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) of which roughly 26% of the
returning Veterans have been positively diagnosed with a mental health condition such as
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, or depression (Tanielian & Jaycox,
2008). Multiple and longer deployments in support of OEF/OIF have resulted in increased
prevalence rates of mental health problems among U.S. service members. Additionally, the
average adjustment period between deployments has lessened; thus, U.S. service members are
unable to adequately process and cope mentally, physically, and emotionally to the consequences
of deployment-related experiences. Subsequently, mental health symptomatology is often
exacerbated.
So if nearly one out of three OEF/OIF Veterans have received a mental health diagnosis,
how is this impacting military retention rates? A study conducted by Hoge, Auchterlone, &
Milliken (2006) revealed that 44,349 OEF/OIF Army and Marine service members who
deployed between May 1, 2003 and April 30, 2004 were discharged due to a mental health risk.
Of those discharged, 10,674 (24.0%) had been in military service for less than three years with a
majority having served less than a year. The average length of an initial commitment to military
service (e.g., enlistment) is four years; therefore, nearly one quarter of U.S. service members are
being prematurely discharged. Once discharged due to mental health related problems, the
Veteran often feels as though s/he is a failure because commitment to duty and service is highly
valued. Their mental health conditions have a greater tendency to worsen due to the abrupt end
to their military career as many may feel completely blindsided.

Veterans diagnosed with mental health problems have a greater probability of
experiencing interpersonal & employment-related issues, where approximately 18% of returning
Veterans have had difficulty maintaining stable employment (Adler et al., 2011; Sayer et al.,
2011; Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). In a sample of 797 OEF/OIF Veterans, 50% of Veterans who
were unemployed were in the 18-29 year old category (n=162) (Adler et al., 2011). Younger
Veterans entering the civilian workforce have a much more difficult chance to successfully
reintegrate back into society. Savych, Klerman, & Loughran (2008) explained that young
Veterans tend to enter the civilian labor market for the first time at a later age on average than
their nonveteran peers. Additionally, the high rates of mental and physical disabilities resulting
from deployment related experiences, especially among 18-24 year olds, has resulted in
unemployment rates almost double the general population (Frain, Bethel, & Bishop, 2010).
In 2010, the average unemployment rate among all Americans in the United States was
9.4% and among Gulf War Era II Veterans (e.g., OEF/OIF), the unemployment rate was 11.5%
(Syracuse University, 2013). Although the unemployment rates dropped slightly for both groups
in 2012, OEF/OIF Veterans still had a higher percentage of Veterans unemployment with 9.9%
compared to 7.8% from the average national population (Syracuse University, 2013). In the state
of Massachusetts, the unemployment rate among OEF/OIF Veterans is a staggering 23.4%
compared to the national average of 9.9% and the unemployment rate among non-veterans in
Massachusetts is 6.3% (Syracuse University, 2013). Why are the unemployment rates among
OEF/OIF Veterans significantly higher in Massachusetts than the national average? Are the
employment-related and reintegration/rehabilitation services offered to Veterans in
Massachusetts truly effective? What are the preventative measures in place to prevent
recidivism rates of unemployment among OEF/OIF Veterans?

Due to mental health stigma, returning Veterans often experience difficulty gaining and
maintaining employment. According to a 2010 Society of Human Resource Management
survey, 46% of employers said that PTSD and other mental health issues were challenges in
hiring employees with military service. Furthermore, Veterans were seen as "less favorable"
when considering war-related psychological disorders (TODAY Health, 2012). High-profile
news about violence at the hands of Veterans and the possible links to PTSD exacerbates and
promotes mental health stigma. And though organizations such as the VA have increased the
level of mental health support for returning Veterans, more civilian employers know that
Veterans are at greater risk for mental health diagnoses such as PTSD (TODAY Health, 2012).
When a Veteran experiences employment-related difficulties that may lead to unemployment due
to perceived mental health stigma, this greatly impedes and severely limits the ability of s/he to
successfully reintegrate back into society. The higher rates of unemployment among OEF/OIF
Veterans compared to their nonveteran counterparts, both nationally and locally here in
Massachusetts, are an indication that mental health stigma has truly become a pervasive and
socially debilitating issue.
Numerical Claim: Unemployment rates among OEF/OIF Veterans are significantly higher
than civilian counterparts both nationally and here in Massachusetts
“About 2.8 million Americans have served in uniform since 9/11, and an estimated 200,000 are
unemployed, according to government numbers…Those ages 18-24 had a jobless rate of 21.4%
in 2013 compared with 14.3% for their civilian counterparts.” – Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
A 2014 article in USA TODAY cited that approximately 200,000 Gulf War II Era
Veterans (e.g., those who served in support of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan) were considered
unemployed of which 21.4% of Veterans ages 18-24 were unemployed in 2013 (Zoroya, 2014).
According to Zoroya (2014) the unemployment rates among Gulf War II Era Veterans was as

low as 6-7% from 2001-2008 as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. A 2014 US News
article entitled “Private Sector Tackles Veteran Joblessness” reported that an alliance known as
the 100,000 Jobs Mission has a goal of hiring at least 200,000 U.S. military veterans by the end
of 2014 which appears to match the aforementioned statistic (Peralta, 2014). Peralta (2014)
included a graph in the article with a source from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that reflected an
approximately 8% unemployment rate among Post 9/11 Veterans in January 2014 and was as
high as 12% two years prior. A 2011 report from the White House mentioned that more than
200,000 Post 9/11 Veterans were unemployed thus prompting an initiative known as the Veteran
Gold Card (www.whitehouse.gov, 2011). According to the 2011 White House report, the
approximate number of unemployed Gulf War II Era Veterans has remained relatively constant
for at least three years.
Upon further investigation, a 2015 news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor reported that 182,000 Gulf War II Era Veterans nationwide were
unemployed in 2014 including 144,000 men and 37,000 women (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2015). This equated to a 7.2% unemployment rate among all Gulf War II Era Veterans in 2014.
Comparatively, 205,000 Gulf War II Era Veterans were unemployed in 2013 with a respective
9.0% unemployment rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015. These numbers seem to be
consistent with those reported in the aforementioned news articles; however, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics also included statistics of those Gulf War II Era Veterans who were not in the labor
force which was 649,000 and 552,000 for 2014 and 2013 respectively (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2015). The statistic of unemployment rates among 18-24 year old Gulf War Era II
Veterans reported by Zoroya (2014) was also reported by the Chairman’s Office of Reintegration
(www.jcs.mil/CORe, 2014). Interestingly, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an

unemployment rate of 16.2% among 18-24 year old Gulf War II Era Veterans in 2014 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2015). As with nationally reported unemployment rates, one may assume that
those rates are only based upon individuals who are actively collecting unemployment insurance.
Therefore, the unemployment rates reported by the news articles may not be an accurate
reflection of the number of Gulf War II Era Veterans who are not employed for various reasons
(e.g., disability-related, seeking further education, etc.).
As a comparison, analysis of the unemployment rate among Gulf War Era II Veterans in
Massachusetts is necessary. In the state of Massachusetts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported an unemployment rate of 4.7% among Veterans 18 years and over according to 2014
annual averages (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). However, these rates include all Veterans
regardless of era served. U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney reported that 11.9% of Post-
9/11 Veterans living in the state of Massachusetts were unemployed in 2014 compared to the
national average of 7.2% (Maloney, 2015). As per the Maloney (2015) report, 171,000 Veterans
in Massachusetts were in the labor force with an overall unemployment rate of 4.7% which is
consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Specifically among Gulf War II Era
Veterans in Massachusetts, 5,000 were unemployed compared to 41,000 in the labor force which
equated to an 11.9% unemployment rate in Massachusetts (Maloney, 2015).
Based on these alarming statistics, both locally here in Massachusetts and on a national
level, along with the growing percentages of returning OEF/OIF Veterans seeking mental health
treatment, our returning Veterans are struggling to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society.
I believe a major contributing factor behind this social epidemic is mental health stigma. One
way to address mental health stigma (and to subsequently reduce unemployment rates among
returning OEF/OIF Veterans) is via a frontend approach targeting ways in which the military can

help reduce mental health stigmatization and military discharge policies. Another way to address
mental health stigma is via a backend approach by focusing on stigmatization experienced post-
military discharge (e.g., from civilian employers, media attention, etc.) Ultimately the goal is to
increase the level of support for OEF/OIF Veterans and military service members who are
struggling with mental health related issues. For the purposes of the next section, I will focus on
three different approaches in addressing mental health stigma among our returning Veterans and
military service members. Analysis of each approach will be based on the following criteria:
1. Feasibility
2. Effectiveness/Efficacy (how well the policy alternative can and/or will function)
3. Cost (financially and/or otherwise)
4. Ethics/Values
Policy Alternative #1: Need for increased confidentiality measures
A study published in Epidemiologic Reviews showed that 60% of military personnel who
experience mental health problems do not seek help (Sharp, Fear, Rona, Wessely, Greenberg,
Jones, & Goodwin, 2015). This is an alarming statistic and mental health stigma is believed to
be at the center of it. The belief is that mental health stigma acts as a deterrent for military
service members discouraging them from seeking mental health diagnoses and treatment. The
study by Sharp et al., (2015) showed that 44% of personnel reported concerns that their
leadership would treat them differently and 42% reported that they feared that they would be
seen as weak. Perceived threat of harassment, judgment and criticism regarding mental illness as
well as seeking treatment becomes an often difficult hurdle to overcome in the military.
Refusing to seek mental health treatment, however, only perpetuates and exacerbates mental
health symptoms which can have a negative impact on the individual and their military unit.

Because the military is centered around mission readiness, the concept of “fitness of
duty” applies to the psychological health and well-being of service members themselves. In an
interview with Col. Rebecca I. Porter, chief of the Behavioral Health Division of the Office of
the Army’s Surgeon General, she discussed the responsibilities of Army leaders in managing
their troop’s mental health. She explained that the command is responsible for monitoring the
overall health and well-being of its soldiers; therefore, if a commander has reason for concern,
they have access to behavioral health providers for consultation or treatment (Nakashima, 2011).
A Commanding Officer does reserve the right to order an official mental health evaluation.
According to a 2006 study in Military Medicine, 39% of those who were required to participate
in a command-directed mental health evaluation experienced a negative career impact (NAMI,
2015). Therefore, if a service member has a chronic pattern of difficulty adjusting to stress or
change, then that may warrant cause for separation from the military (Nakashima, 2011). Those
who are then discharged from the military due to mental illness (many as a result of deployment
and combat-related experiences) are seen as being “unfit for duty.”
Although the Department of Defense is bound to rules mandated by HIPAA regarding
disclosure of PHI, there are exceptions for the U.S. military. According to Collier (2010),
military commanders are permitted to access health information when “such access is necessary
to accomplish the military mission …[including] drug testing, fitness for deployability, changes
in duty status due to medical conditions, medical conditions or treatments that are duty limiting,
and perceived threats to life or health” (p. E821). Those in favor of such access argue that
people surrender certain personal rights when joining the military and that the “mission of the
collective trumps the rights of the individual” (Collier, 2010, p. E821). Engel (2014) argued that
the issue in the military regarding mental health stigma is due to inadequate boundaries between

the workplace and the therapist’s office. Engel (2014) also stated that military chaplains, in stark
contrast, enjoy essentially absolute confidentiality. Conversations shared with military
chaplains, unlike with mental health providers, are not entered in official military health records.
Service members, then, perceive that seeking treatment can potentially harm their career due to
mistrust over confidentiality. Though military commanders do have a responsibility of
effectively maintaining a cohesive and healthy unit, the question remains whether they have a
right to unrestricted access.
The Military Mental Health Empowerment Act (MMHEA), otherwise known as H.R.
1464, was formed in 2013 to require the provision of information to members of the armed
forces on availability of mental health services and related privacy rights. H.R. 1464 primarily
sought to address the extent to which information regarding a service member seeking and
receiving mental health services may be disclosed among promotion boards, commanding
officers, and other members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, H.R. 1464 sought to restrict any
adverse actions taken against a service member for seeking and receiving mental health services
including any negative personnel action resulting from a mental health diagnosis. H.R. 1464
also sought to increase awareness and availability of mental health services by informing and
educating all enlisted and officer recruits during their initial military training. This goal was
designed to help eliminate perceived stigma associated with seeking and receiving mental health
services as well as to clarify the extent to which information may be disclosed.
Policy Alternative #2: Increase mental health service utilization in military
In addition to increased attrition rates in the military due to mental health related issues,
Veterans suffering from mental health problems also battle stigmatization with utilizing mental
health services. A study conducted by Hoge et al., (2004) found that among service members

who screened positive for a mental disorder, 38-45% indicated an interest in receiving help and
between 23-40% reported having received professional help. Negative beliefs about mental
health care (particularly psychotherapy) and decreased perceptions of military unit support were
associated with a decreased likelihood of utilizing mental health counseling and medication
(Pietrzak, Johnson, Goldstein, Malley, & Southwick, 2009). These findings, in particular the
perceived lack of military unit support, are consistent with those of Hoge et al., (2006) regarding
military attrition rates due to mental health problems. Pietrzak et al., (2009) suggested that
increasing military unit support regarding mental health may help to decrease mental health
stigma and subsequently increase mental health service utilization among U.S. service members
and Veterans.
One way that the military, in particular the Army, is addressing mental health service
utilization is by embedding mental health teams within soldiers’ units. At Joint Base Lewis-
McChord (JBLM) and elsewhere, the Army has pushed counseling teams out of hospitals to
embed with troops. This has helped cut back the use of private psychiatric hospitals while
expanding intensive mental health programs at military facilities (Bernton & Ashton, 2015).
Bernton & Ashton (2015) explained that these reforms come at a time when the Army, despite a
dramatic reduction in troops headed to Iraq & Afghanistan, still faces serious challenges trying to
reach and treat soldiers suffering from PTSD and other mental health conditions. Across the
Army, patient contacts with mental health personnel reached 2 million in 2014 which was more
than double the numbers six years earlier when the Army had deployed many more soldiers in
ground combat in support of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
According to Army data, soldiers resist care because many still feel that reaching out to a
mental health provider will be held against them by their peers and leaders, and could damage

their careers (Bernton & Ashton, 2015). The intent on embedding mental health providers
among soldiers’ units is to help reduce stigma and make it easier for soldiers to seek care from
psychiatrists, counselors and social workers. These specialists may now have offices within
walking distance from barracks versus in more distant medical centers off-post. Ease of access
has been shown to increase service utilization. Advocates for this initiative also explain that
doctors in regular contact with a single unit are best able to understand the pressures soldiers face
and their regular presence also gives them credibility with military leaders (Bernton & Ashton,
2015). However, the closeness of ties to the command also draws criticism, particularly for
those who see mental health providers such as psychologists and psychiatrists as proxies for
military leaders who may be seeking punitive action against them (Bernton & Ashton, 2015).
Either way, this alternative to addressing mental health stigma has proven to be effective in the
Army and may be equally beneficial across the military with similar implementations.
Policy Alternative #3: Increase mental health awareness in the workplace
According to a poll conducted by the Disability Management Employer Coalition
(DMEC) in 2014, approximately one quarter of employers believed workplace stigma
surrounding diagnosed psychological or psychiatric disorders has increased. Additionally,
between 20% and 25% of employers polled in 2014 said they perceived a rise in workplace
stigma in 2014 surrounding the treatment of mental health and behavioral health conditions
despite all the tools, resources and information available to employers about mental illness and
behavioral health (Dunning, 2015). DMEC’s survey also found that although employers have
broadened the range of mental health services, education and training they provide to employees
and managers, the percentage of companies that have actually implemented many of those
programs has dropped dramatically to just 15% since 2010 (Dunning, 2015). Terri Rhodes,

DMEC’s executive director in San Francisco explained that little acknowledgment has been
made in society that working functional employees can have varying degrees of behavioral
health issues (Dunning, 2015). Therefore, improvements must be made in mental health training
for employees and employers alike.
Collins, Wong, Cerully, Schultz, & Eberhart (2012) suggested to initiate educational
approaches to reducing mental health stigma in the workplace by providing factual information
regarding mental illness and recovery to replace inaccurate stereotypes and subsequently
increase affirming attitudes. One of the strategies regarding mental health stigma education is
the emphasis that anyone can get a mental illness—particularly that mental illness affects large
portions of the population and that those with mental illnesses can recover and/or have decreased
mental health symptomology following treatment (Collins et al., 2012). Changing these beliefs
is likely to break down perceptions of “us” versus “them.” Some topics could include the causes
of mental illness, mental health treatment, and the experiences of people with mental health
problems (Collins et al., 2012). Evidence also suggests that fostering interactions with
individuals with mental illness can have an even greater impact on attitudinal changes than
educational strategies (Collins et al., 2012).
In Canada, many employers are required to attend a Mental Health in the Workplace
workshop where they can obtain a certificate by highlighting the importance of a mentally health
workplace. The cost of this certificate program is $1495 per person and involves an in-class
workshop session and online training modules (Shepell, 2015). Another training option would
be geared specifically for educating employers and employees about the military and Veteran
community—particularly those with mental illnesses. The National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) offers a free 6-session educational program called NAMI Homefront, which is led by

trained family members of service members/Veterans living with mental health conditions.
Although this is traditionally a course designed as a peer-to-peer model (e.g., Veterans and
service members with their family members as the targeted audience), a program such as NAMI
Homefront could be adapted to educating the civilian employment sector. Employers and
companies/organizations who decide to participate in mental health educational programs such
as these could be provided a federal tax break as a financial incentive which could potentially
offset any financial costs incurred associated with the training programs.
Analysis of Policy Alternative #1: Need for increased confidentiality measures
As a disabled Veteran with mental health problems who also experienced a negative
career impact due to such issues, I know firsthand how difficult it is to not have mental health
problems affect the overall mission of the military. I was found to be mentally unfit to hold a top
secret security clearance and subsequently was discharged from my unit in Germany and sent
back to the United States. Although I voluntarily sought mental health treatment, I received
pressure from my military command to do so. In the military a service member gives up certain
rights, freedoms, and privileges that to a civilian would otherwise be afforded. The mission of
the military, as Collier (2010) explained, is valued much greater than the needs, wants, and
desires of the individual.
Increased measures to ensure confidentiality in the military regarding mental health
records and mental health treatment may not be entirely feasible. Military commanders and
leaders do indeed have a responsibility to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of their
service members as well as fulfilling the overall mission and duty. When one enlists in the
military, they swear and pledge an oath to protect and serve the United States against all enemies
foreign and domestic. If a service member is suffering from mental health related issues that

may in fact interfere with his/her ability to perform their duty, their military leaders and
commanders will need to thoroughly evaluate. For example, let us assume that a service
member, who is suffering from PTSD, is on a routine patrol while on deployment and responds
to a perceived threat by discharging their weapon and in the process kills a fellow service
member. Additionally, this particular service member was diagnosed with severe PTSD prior to
their most recent deployment and had been confidentially seeking mental health treatment. In
this situation the military command was unaware of the mental health diagnosis and a potentially
unfit service member was deployed. What may result is a major investigation and the service
member’s leaders could also be held responsible.
The military structure is very duty and mission orientated that the potential cost of the
safety and security of those actively serving would be far too great. The tradeoff of increased
confidentiality of mental health records and mental health treatment requires far too much risk
that military commanders may be willing to accept. In April 2014, Army Specialist Ivan Lopez,
who had a history of mental health issues, opened fire at Fort Hood, TX killing three people and
wounded 16 others before taking his own life. Spc. Lopez had recently transferred to Fort Hood
from Fort Bliss where he was stationed at for four years; however, his commanders at Fort Hood
were not privy to Lopez’s mental health history (Wong, 2014). A new software program called
“Commander’s Risk Reduction Dashboard,” developed by Army officials, allows commanders
to consolidate information from multiple Army databases to track soldiers with at-risk behaviors;
however, the accepted culture in the military conflicts with this as service members are given a
fresh start with every permanent change in duty station (Wong, 2014). Therefore, is ensuring the
privacy of the individual worth pursuing at the potential cost of others’ safety? Certainly
situations such as the 2014 Fort Hood shooting are unfortunate and may not be representative of

the larger body of service members who struggle with mental health related issues; however,
military leaders and commanders would argue that these occurrences are more preventable with
measures limiting confidentiality of mental health records.
This, then, brings me to the next criteria of ethics/values. As mentioned previously, the
military greatly values duty and mission. The military is not individualistic but rather group and
mission-orientated. Therefore, personal needs of confidentiality may conflict with the needs of
the military to ensure the safety and security of everyone. To reiterate a point mentioned earlier
in this section, service in the military requires one to give up certain rights, freedoms, and
privileges otherwise experienced in the civilian world. Increased confidentiality measures may
jeopardize the military’s overall mission. It is indeed unfortunate the increased rates of mental
health diagnoses in the military and subsequent military discharges due to said conditions;
however, if one is unable to adequately and safely perform his/her duties in the military,
reevaluation must be implemented by military leaders and commanders which may include
discharge from the military or relocation/reassignment. If measures were put in place to ensure
increased individual confidentiality similar to those experienced in the civilian sector, it would
be met with great opposition. As a result, I believe that this would increase mental health stigma
in the military instead of lowering it and thus would not be effective.
Analysis of Policy Alternative #2: Increase mental health service utilization in military
Due to the success the Army has had in increasing mental health service utilization by
embedding mental health providers among troops, this policy alternative is very feasible to be
implemented across all military branches for both the active and reserve/National Guard
components. This could even be implemented at major military installations that are forward
deployed in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan; however, this would require mental health

service providers to deploy with the military units and civilian mental health providers may not
be willing to do so. Instead, the military could enlist the help of mental health providers who are
already currently serving in the military. An exception to the feasibility of embedding mental
health service providers with deployed service members may be the Navy. With the exception of
Navy aircraft carriers, most Navy vessels (including submarines) have limited available
resources and capabilities of providing mental health services to deployed Navy service
members. Most Navy vessels do have a Chaplain onboard; however, Chaplains are not trained to
be licensed mental health providers who can provide both diagnoses and treatment. Therefore,
embedding mental health service providers with service members may be limited to military
installations (e.g., military bases) primarily. With respect to cost, the military already has trained
service members and civilian providers, therefore, costs would be very negligible aside from
building facilities if necessary.
Embedding mental health service providers with service members and thus increasing
accessibility to mental health treatment services would indeed help reduce barriers to treatment
seeking. Ouimette et al., (2011) examined the perceived barriers to care for Veterans seeking
treatment at the VA hospitals and found that factors such as perceived lack of skill and
sensitivity among hospital staff were among those that decreased mental health treatment service
utilization. As Bernton & Ashton (2015) explained, embedding mental health service providers
among military installations where the service members are at versus at scattered sites such as
remote military hospitals increases credibility and gives the service providers a greater
perspective of military life. This, then, would greatly improve rapport and could foster greater
therapeutic relationships that would subsequently have a positive effect on mental health service
utilization. Due to the increase in credibility and improved therapeutic relationships, mental

health stigma would be lowered. Unity and military support are highly valued among service
members. If military leaders and commanders could see the positive effect a policy alternative
such as this would have on their service members, this would greatly reduce the stigma behind
mental health service use. Such treatment may be viewed no differently than routine physical
training to maintain good physical fitness—and now service members can receive assistance in
establishing and maintaining good mental fitness especially since the military is a very stressful
and demanding profession.
Analysis of Policy Alternative #3: Increase mental health awareness in the workplace
In order to make any significant impact on the rising unemployment rates among
OEF/OIF Veterans, this policy alternative would need to require most (if not all) civilian
employers to participate in implementing training and education regarding mental health—
particularly among returning Veterans and the military community. Requiring civilian
employers to participate may have an opposite effect and could in fact foster resentment and
refusal to understand the mental health-related issues faced by the Veteran and military
community. Instead, adding an incentive in the form of a federal tax break may actually draw in
civilian employers to voluntarily implement such trainings in their organizations. Certainly this
may still not draw enough interest as some civilian employers may not feel this training is
applicable and/or relevant. Disclosing one’s prior military status is often voluntary and some
Veterans opt not to publicly disclose their prior military status for various reasons including: (1)
their job and/or area of specialty in the military was highly sensitive/classified; (2) shame or
embarrassment especially if they were discharged from the military due to less than honorable
conditions and/or mental health issues; (3) may want to fully separate themselves from their

military service and assimilate into civilian society. For many of these reasons, civilian
employers may not be aware if any of their employees are Veterans.
This policy alternative would be effective in reducing mental health stigma in the
workplace assuming the “us” versus “them” mentality is diminished. Training programs such as
those mentioned previously in this paper focus on normalizing mental health issues by having
those who are either dealing with mental health issues themselves or are a family member of
someone who is instruct and lead the trainings. This, I believe, is at the center core of mental
health stigma: the perception that those with mental illnesses are not able to be functioning
members of society. Furthermore, the media often portrays the extreme cases of mental illnesses
(e.g., the psychopathic serial killers, mentally ill homeless) when the reality is that mental illness
can (and often does) affect a large proportion of society—many of whom have symptoms that
are undetectable whether due to any combination of treatment, therapy, or medication. The key
to educational and training programs aimed at addressing mental health is to help raise awareness
and understanding thus to foster greater support and empathy.
Overall cost of implementing such programs could be mitigated and/or offset by federal
tax breaks. Obviously the Mental Health in the Workplace workshop in Canada would not be
supported by many employers due to the overwhelming financial cost. However, as previously
mentioned in this paper, NAMI offers free programs on a wide range of topics including LGBT,
Veterans & Active Duty and they have centers located throughout the country. Although many
of the training and educational programs offered by NAMI are targeted more towards mental
health service providers, the content could be adjusted to fit the specific needs of the
organization. In order to promote participation, employers could offer incentives to their
employees such as comped time, CEUs (or equivalent), small bonus, etc.

Policy Decision
Upon an in-depth analysis of each policy alternative, I would choose a combination of
alternatives #2 & #3. My focus would be on increasing accessibility of mental health treatment
services by embedding service providers among military installations as well as incorporating the
NAMI Homefront program in the trainings service members already receive. The military
already employs both civilian and military personnel as mental health service providers so costs
would be limited to just obtaining space to hold such services (whether already existing or not).
As research has demonstrated, increased military unit support has improved mental health
service utilization (Pietrzak et al., (2009)). Addressing the “us” versus “them” mentality and
emphasizing the fact that people with mental health related issues can indeed be functioning and
contributing members of society provided by adequate support, is crucial in reducing mental
health stigma. If service members are given improved mental health support they will be more
likely to seek mental health treatment upon discharge from the military. As previously
mentioned in this paper, untreated mental illnesses can and often exacerbate the symptomatology
and thus create greater issues. I do not believe anything can be successfully done to increase
confidentiality measures in the military as the overall mission of the military and safety and
security of all military personnel is paramount. By taking a front-end approach to mental health
stigma in the military, I strongly feel that returning Veterans will have the tools and resources
necessary for an easier transition to civilian life which would result in lower unemployment rates
and subsequent interpersonal & professional issues.

References
Adler, D. A., Klaus, J., Possemato, K., Tew, J. D., Mavandadi, S., Barrett, D., . . . Oslin, D. W.
(2011). Psychiatric status and work performance of veterans of Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Psychiatric Services, 62(1), 39-46.
Bernton, H., & Ashton, A. (2015). As PTSD cases surge, Army overhauling mental health
services. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/health/hands-on-approach-to-military-mental-health/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Employment Situation of Veterans – 2014. Retrieved May
19th
, 2015, from http://www.dol.gov/vets/BLS-Vets-Numbers-Mar2015.pdf
Collier, R. (2010). Irreconcilable choices in military medicine. Canadian Medical Association
Journal, 182(18), E821-E822. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3723
Collins, R. L., Wong, E. C., Cerully, J. L., Schultz, D., & Eberhart, N. K. (2012). Interventions to
reduce mental health stigma and discrimination: A literature review to guide evaluation
of California’s Mental Health Prevention and Early Intervention Initiative (pp. 1-47).
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Dunning, M. (2015). Workplace mental health stigma persists. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20150225/NEWS03/150229907/workplace-
mental-health-stigma-persists
Engel, C. C. (2014). Compromised confidentiality in the military is harmful. Retrieved June 22,
2015, from http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/10/compromised-confidentiality-in-the-
military-is-harmful.html
Frain, M. P., Bethel, M., & Bishop, M. (2010). A roadmap for rehabilitation counseling to serve
military veterans with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(1), 13-21.

Hoge, C. W., Auchterlone, J. L., & Milliken, C. S. (2006). Mental health problems, use of mental
health services, and attrition from military service after returning from deployment to
Iraq or Afghanistan. Journal of American Medical Association, 295(9), 1023-1032.
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004).
Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13-22.
Maloney, C. B. (2015). Economic Snapshot: Massachusetts. Retrieved May 19th
, 2015, from
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c925c790-9ac6-
4a6a-82d0-3fbf13192f44
Mental Health Empowerment Act of 2014 § H.R. 1464, 113 U.S.C. (2014).
Nakashima, E. (2011). Q & A: How the Army handles behavioral health issues. Retrieved June
12, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/qanda-how-the-army-
handles-behavioral-health-issues/2011/05/02/AF5f6lrF_story.thml
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2015). Veterans & Active Duty. Retrieved June
20, 2015 from https://www.nami.org/ Find-Support/Veterans-and-Active-Duty
Ouimette, P., Vogt, D., Wade, M., Tirone, V., Greenbaum, M. A., Kimerling, R., Laffaye, C., &
Fitt, J. E. (2011). Perceived barriers to care among Veterans Health Administration
patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Services, 8(3), 212-223.
Peralta, K. (2014). Private Sector Tackles Veteran Joblessness: Though progress has been made,
post-9/11 U.S. military veterans still face tough employment prospects. Retrieved May
20th
, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/10/private-sector-tackles-
veteran-unemployment

Pietrzak, R., H., Johnson, D. C., Goldstein, M. B., Malley, J. C., & Southwick, S. M. (2009).
Perceived stigma and barriers to mental health care utilization among OEF-OIF veterans.
Psychiatric Services, 60(8), 1118-1122.
Savych, B., Klerman, J. A., & Loughran, D. S. (2008). Recent trends in veteran unemployment
as measuresd in the current population survey and the American community survey (pp.
1-41). Arlington, VA: National Defense Research Institute.
Sayer, N. A., Frazier, P., Orazem, R. J., Murdoch, M., Gravely, A., Carlson, K. F., . . .
Noobaloochi, S. (2011). Military to civilian questionnaire: A measure of postdeployment
community reintegration difficulty among veterans using Department of Veterans Affairs
medical care. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(6), 660-670.
Sharp, M., Fear, N., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., Jones, N., & Goodwin, L. (2015, February 12).
Epidemiologic Reviews. Retrieved June 21, 2015 from http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/
content/early/2015/01/15/epirev.mxu012.abstract
Shepell. (2015). What your organization can do to reduce mental health stigma. Retrieved June
24, 2015, from https://blog.shepell.com/what-your-organization-can-do-to-reduce-
mental-health-stigma/
Syracuse University. (2013). The annual employment situation of veterans (pp. 1-16). Syracuse
University: Institute for Veterans and Military Families.
Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. H. (2008). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive
injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery (Vol. 1). Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.

TODAY Health. (2012). Veterans battle PTSD stigma--even if they don't have it. Retrieved May
29, 2015, from http://www.today.com/health/veterans-battle-ptsd-stigma-even-if-they-
dont-have-it-578124.
Wong, K. (2014). Fort Hood opens debate about secrecy of medical records. Retrieved July 14th
,
2015, from http://thehill.com/policy/defense/202892-fort-hood-opens-debate-about-
secrecy-of-medical-records
www.jcs.mil/CORe. (2014). Veteran Reintegration: Useful data (OCT 2014) Many myths
surrounding Veteran reintegration are not founded in facts. Retrieved May 20th
, 2015,
from http:///www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CORe/1410_Veteran_
Reintegration_Useful_Data.pdf
www.whitehouse.gov. (2011). Fact Sheet: Returning Heroes and Wounded Warrior Tax Credits.
Retrieved May 20th
, 2015, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2011/11/21/fact-sheet-returning-heroes-and-wounded-warrior-tax-credits
Zoroya, G. (2014). Recent veterans struggle to find jobs. Retrieved May 19th
, 2015, from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/20/veterans-iraq-afghanistan-war-
unemployment-infantry/6644789

Policy Analysis Writing Sample_WalkerB

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Policy Analysis Writing Sample_WalkerB

Similar to Policy Analysis Writing Sample_WalkerB (20)

Policy Analysis Writing Sample_WalkerB