Serving Those Who Serve: A 50-State Ranking on Veterans and Military Affairs Policy
The men and women who serve in the Armed Forces sacrifice much of their liberty in defense of the American homeland, national interests, and way of life. This service often involves multiple deployments, frequent moves, and, in some cases, service-related health conditions. As a result, veterans, service members, and military families face unique challenges that can be addressed through principled government policy.
While the federal government has primary responsibility for supporting the veteran and military community, caring for those who serve in our nation’s military is a collective effort, and states have a significant role to play. Unfortunately, a lack of comparison and evaluation has left many states content with veterans and military affairs policies that fail to adequately address the unique challenges facing this community.
Serving Those Who Serve aims to fill the evaluation gap by ranking the states on their veteran and military affairs policies. Specifically, it analyzes the areas where state governments can have the greatest impact, including support for military families, veteran transition, justice-involved veterans, and emerging approaches to treating service-related mental health conditions. By analyzing these policies and identifying the gaps between states, the report empowers state legislators to take action and meaningfully improve their states’ support for the veteran and military community.
Editor’s Note: This publication reflects all programs and policies that were enacted as of July 1st, 2026. All programs and policies enacted after this date will be reflected in the next iteration of this publication.
Overall Rankings
| Rank | State | Points | Tiebreaker: Veterans per Capita |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | 66 | 6.02% |
| 2 | Florida | 65 | 6.95% |
| 3 | Arizona | 60 | 7.41% |
| 4 | Colorado | 59 | 6.98% |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 52 | 7.53% |
| 6 | Utah | 52 | 4.27% |
| 7 | Arkansas | 51 | 6.92% |
| 8 | Delaware | 50 | 7.18% |
| 9 | New Hampshire | 50 | 7.03% |
| 10 | Maryland | 49 | 6.83% |
| 11 | Indiana | 49 | 5.92% |
| 12 | Virginia | 48 | 8.86% |
| 13 | Connecticut | 48 | 4.41% |
| 14 | New Jersey | 48 | 3.35% |
| 15 | Maine | 46 | 7.59% |
| 16 | Nebraska | 46 | 6.41% |
| 17 | Louisiana | 46 | 6.02% |
| 18 | Massachusetts | 46 | 3.95% |
| 19 | North Carolina | 45 | 7.23% |
| 20 | Tennessee | 44 | 7.11% |
| 21 | California | 43 | 4.02% |
| 22 | New Mexico | 41 | 7.46% |
| 23 | Alabama | 41 | 7.45% |
| 24 | Washington | 40 | 7.29% |
| 25 | Nevada | 40 | 7.18% |
| 26 | Idaho | 39 | 7.43% |
| 27 | Mississippi | 39 | 6.26% |
| 28 | Illinois | 39 | 4.53% |
| 29 | North Dakota | 38 | 6.86% |
| 30 | Georgia | 37 | 7.03% |
| 31 | Missouri | 37 | 7.02% |
| 32 | Wyoming | 36 | 8.14% |
| 33 | Oregon | 36 | 6.77% |
| 34 | Kansas | 35 | 6.65% |
| 35 | Alaska | 34 | 9.90% |
| 36 | Montana | 34 | 8.44% |
| 37 | Kentucky | 33 | 6.21% |
| 38 | Minnesota | 33 | 5.49% |
| 39 | South Carolina | 32 | 8.07% |
| 40 | West Virginia | 31 | 7.31% |
| 41 | Pennsylvania | 30 | 5.76% |
| 42 | Rhode Island | 30 | 4.80% |
| 43 | Iowa | 29 | 6.19% |
| 44 | Ohio | 29 | 6.15% |
| 45 | Wisconsin | 27 | 5.77% |
| 46 | Vermont | 26 | 5.71% |
| 47 | Michigan | 24 | 5.42% |
| 48 | South Dakota | 23 | 7.39% |
| 49 | Hawaii | 18 | 7.56% |
| 50 | New York | 15 | 3.47% |
Methodology and Scoring
Ten policies were identified for this index and assigned 10 points each. Veteran population per capita was used as a tie-breaking variable using data from the 2024 American Community Survey. Military population is included for reference but is not used as a ranking variable. The data for military population comes from the Defense Manpower Data Center’s quarterly Military and Civilian Personnel report. Unless otherwise stated, all scores are based on ALEC’s assessment of state statutes and other publicly available government sources.
Supporting Military Families – 40 points
- School Transitions for Military-Connected Students
- Purple Star Schools
- Military Homeschoolers
- State Exemptions for Military-Certified Family Child Care
Supporting Veterans Through Transition – 20 points
- Military Crosswalk
- Public-Private Partnerships
Supporting Justice-Involved Veterans – 20 points
- Veterans Treatment Courts
- Diversion for Justice-Involved Veterans
Supporting Emerging Treatments for Service-Related Mental Health Conditions – 20 points
- Regulated Access to Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy
- Research Funding for Ibogaine-Assisted Therapy
Scores
| Rank | State | Total | School Transitions | Purple Star Schools | Military Homeschoolers | Child Care Exemptions | Military Crosswalk | Public-Private Partnerships | Veterans Treatment Courts | Diversion | Psilocybin | Ibogaine | Veterans per Capita |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | 66 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.02% |
| 2 | Florida | 65 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 6.95% |
| 3 | Arizona | 60 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 7.41% |
| 4 | Colorado | 59 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 6.98% |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 52 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7.53% |
| 6 | Utah | 52 | 8 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4.27% |
| 7 | Arkansas | 51 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.92% |
| 8 | Delaware | 50 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.18% |
| 9 | New Hampshire | 50 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.03% |
| 10 | Maryland | 49 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 6.83% |
| 11 | Indiana | 49 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 5.92% |
| 12 | Virginia | 48 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 8.86% |
| 13 | Connecticut | 48 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4.41% |
| 14 | New Jersey | 48 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3.35% |
| 15 | Maine | 46 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.59% |
| 16 | Nebraska | 46 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.41% |
| 17 | Louisiana | 46 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 6.02% |
| 18 | Massachusetts | 46 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 3.95% |
| 19 | North Carolina | 45 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.23% |
| 20 | Tennessee | 44 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7.11% |
| 21 | California | 43 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 4.02% |
| 22 | New Mexico | 41 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 7.46% |
| 23 | Alabama | 41 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 7.45% |
| 24 | Washington | 40 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7.29% |
| 25 | Nevada | 40 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 7.18% |
| 26 | Idaho | 39 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.43% |
| 27 | Mississippi | 39 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.26% |
| 28 | Illinois | 39 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.53% |
| 29 | North Dakota | 38 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 6.86% |
| 30 | Georgia | 37 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.03% |
| 31 | Missouri | 37 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.02% |
| 32 | Wyoming | 36 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.14% |
| 33 | Oregon | 36 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 6.77% |
| 34 | Kansas | 35 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 6.65% |
| 35 | Alaska | 34 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.90% |
| 36 | Montana | 34 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.44% |
| 37 | Kentucky | 33 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6.21% |
| 38 | Minnesota | 33 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5.49% |
| 39 | South Carolina | 32 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.07% |
| 40 | West Virginia | 31 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.31% |
| 41 | Pennsylvania | 30 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.76% |
| 42 | Rhode Island | 30 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.80% |
| 43 | Iowa | 29 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.19% |
| 44 | Ohio | 29 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.15% |
| 45 | Wisconsin | 27 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.77% |
| 46 | Vermont | 26 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.71% |
| 47 | Michigan | 24 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.42% |
| 48 | South Dakota | 23 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.39% |
| 49 | Hawaii | 18 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.56% |
| 50 | New York | 15 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.47% |
Chapter 1: Supporting Military Families
School Transitions for Military-Connected Students
ALEC Policy Resource: Uniformed Services Child School Transitions Act
For military-connected children, frequent moves and the disruptions that accompany them are a normal fact of life. Over one million American school-aged children have at least one active-duty parent, and more than 80% attend public schools. On average, these students will change schools six to nine times between kindergarten and high school, relocating every two to three years. To accommodate the mobility inherent in military life, state legislators across the United States are introducing measures to ensure smooth school transitions for military-connected children.
These state-level efforts build upon a broader national framework. The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, developed in 2007 and adopted by all states and the District of Columbia, establishes consistent guidelines for enrollment, placement, attendance, eligibility, and graduation. The Military Interstate Children’s Compact Commission (MIC3) governs the Compact, which was designed to address some of the many challenges that arise when military families move across state lines, such as preventing the loss of academic credit or maintaining extracurricular eligibility.
However, while the Compact provides a strong foundation, it has been unable to adopt new provisions in the nearly 20 years since it was established, since any amendment would require unanimous legislative approval by all member states. Instead, the MIC3 has endorsed state approaches to create additional provisions that fill gaps for military-connected students.
The ALEC model policy Uniformed Services Child School Transitions Act provides a template for states to fill these gaps without affecting the MIC3 compact. The policy originates in Arkansas and includes advanced enrollment, which allows military families to enroll their children in school upon receipt of orders, rather than waiting until they physically arrive in the new school district. It also builds upon the Arkansas open enrollment statute, which includes cross-district and within-district transfers and prohibits public schools from charging tuition to transferring students.
The data for Open Enrollment and Free for Families come from the 2026 ALEC Index of State Education Freedom. When a state has a relevant statute that applies only to military families, the state will receive credit in this index.
Scoring Details
Advanced Enrollment
- 4 points are awarded when a state has an advanced enrollment statute that includes registration by remote or electronic means.
- 2 points are awarded when a state has an advanced enrollment statute that does not mention remote registration.
Open Enrollment
- 4 points are awarded when a state has open enrollment statutes that allow for cross-district and within-district transfers.
- 2 points are awarded when a state has open enrollment statutes that allow for either cross-district or within-district transfers, but not both.
Free for Families
- 2 points are awarded when a state prohibits public schools from charging tuition to transferring students.
| State | Score | Advanced Enrollment | Open Enrollment | Free for Families |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Arkansas | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| California | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Colorado | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Connecticut | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Florida | 8 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Georgia | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 8 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Illinois | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Kansas | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Kentucky | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Maine | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Maryland | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Missouri | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Nebraska | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Nevada | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ohio | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Oregon | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Texas | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Utah | 8 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Vermont | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Washington | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| West Virginia | 6 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Wyoming | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Purple Star Schools
ALEC Policy Resource: Purple Star School Act
The challenges military-connected students face do not end after school transition, and 46 states have created Purple Star School programs to recognize schools that take steps to become more military friendly. Generally, requirements to be recognized as a Purple Star School include designating a military point of contact for military families, creating a webpage with specific information for military families, providing training for staff on the unique challenges that military-connected students face, and facilitating student-led programs to help incoming military-connected students integrate. The programs are voluntary for schools, as not every school or school district will have a significant military-connected student population.
While most states have a Purple Star School program, the quality of these programs vary widely across states. The Purple Star School Act represents the most comprehensive statute and includes additional elements to support military-connected students. These include a broad definition of “military-connected student” that encompasses gold star families, reserve component families, and veterans; a requirement that Purple Star Schools collaborate with any local military installation’s military school liaison or family readiness center; and a minimum coverage requirement to ensure that any school with twenty or more military-connected students fulfills the Purple Star School criteria.
Arkansas is the only state that fulfills all scoring criteria and receives full credit. While 26 states have Purple Star School programs in statute, 20 states operate programs through executive orders or administrative action and were scored based on the information publicly available on their websites. Four states do not operate Purple Star School programs and receive no credit.
Scoring Details
Statewide Program
- 5 points are awarded when a state has a statewide Purple Star School program in statute.
- 2 points are awarded when a state has a statewide Purple Star School program that was created through executive order or administrative action.
Meaningful Coverage
- 2 points are awarded when a state has a meaningful coverage requirement.
Installation Collaboration
- 2 points are awarded when a state requires Purple Star Schools to collaborate with any local military installation’s military school liaison or family readiness center.
- 1 point is awarded when partnership is mentioned but not required.
Broad Definition
- 1 point is awarded when a state has a broad definition of military-connected student that includes children of active-duty service members, reserve component service members, fallen service members, and veterans.
- 0 points are awarded when the definition is narrow or does not exist.
| State | Score | Statewide Program | Meaningful Coverage | Installation Collaboration | Broad Definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 10 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| California | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Colorado | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Connecticut | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Delaware | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Georgia | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maine | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Maryland | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Massachusetts | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mississippi | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Missouri | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Montana | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Nevada | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| New Hampshire | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Oregon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Utah | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Virginia | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Military Homeschoolers
Frequent moves also lead military families to choose homeschooling at nearly twice the rate of civilian families. Unfortunately, various state-level homeschooling requirements can add unnecessary burdens and complexities to military families as they move from state to state. States can support military families by reducing these barriers and allowing extracurricular access for military families who choose homeschooling.
The data for Annual Notification, Teacher Qualifications, Subject Mandate, and Assessment Mandate come from the 2026 ALEC Index of State Education Freedom. When a state has a relevant statute that only applies to military families, the state will receive credit in this index.
Scoring Details
Annual Notification
- 2 points are awarded when a state does not require military families to provide annual notification of their intent to homeschool.
Teacher Qualifications
- 2 points are awarded when a state does not specify certain teacher qualification requirements for military families who are homeschooling.
Subject Mandate
- 2 points are awarded when a state does not mandate certain subjects be taught to homeschooled military-connected students.
Assessment Mandate
- 2 points are awarded when a state does not mandate assessments for homeschooled military-connected students.
Extracurricular Access
- 2 points are awarded when a state allows homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities with public schools.
| State | Score | Annual Notification | Teacher Qualifications | Subject Mandate | Assessment Mandate | Extracurricular Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Alaska | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Arizona | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Arkansas | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| California | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Colorado | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Connecticut | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Delaware | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Florida | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Georgia | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Hawaii | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Illinois | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Indiana | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Iowa | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Kansas | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Kentucky | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Maine | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Maryland | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Mississippi | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Missouri | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Montana | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Nebraska | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Nevada | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| New Hampshire | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| New Jersey | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| New York | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Ohio | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Oklahoma | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Oregon | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Rhode Island | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| South Dakota | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Texas | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Utah | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Vermont | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Virginia | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| West Virginia | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Wisconsin | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Wyoming | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
State Exemptions for Military-Certified Family Child Care
The Department of War operates the nation’s largest employer-sponsored child care program. Most of this care is provided on military installations and is not subject to state child care licensing requirements. However, military-certified family child care (FCC) providers can also operate from homes located off base. In many states, these providers must obtain a separate state license, which is often duplicative of the Department of War certification process. This creates an unnecessary regulatory burden that can reduce child care options for military families. In response, 24 states provide some form of exemption for these providers from state licensing requirements.
Scoring Details
Licensure Exemption
- 8 points are awarded when a state permanently exempts military-certified FCCs from state licensure requirements.
- 4 points are awarded when a state temporarily exempts military-certified FCCs from state licensure requirements.
- 4 points are awarded when a state exempts military-certified FCCs by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with military bases rather than codifying the exemption.
Broad Coverage
- 2 points are awarded when the exemption is universal for all Department of War FCCs.
- 0 points are awarded when the exemption is limited to a particular military service, installation, or region.
| State | Score | Licensure Exemption | Broad Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Arizona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| California | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colorado | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Connecticut | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Delaware | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Florida | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Georgia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Idaho | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Louisiana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maine | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Maryland | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Nebraska | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Nevada | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| New Jersey | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| New York | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| North Dakota | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Ohio | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Oregon | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Texas | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Utah | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Vermont | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Washington | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Chapter 2: Supporting Veterans Through Transition
Military Crosswalk
ALEC Policy Resource: Military Crosswalk Act
While many service members gain training and experience in jobs that closely resemble civilian occupations, state occupational licensing boards do not always recognize these qualifications. Instead, they require transitioning service members to start their civilian careers from scratch by setting extensive, specific conditions for obtaining a license. This red tape puts qualified veterans at a disadvantage in the job market and creates significant barriers to employment.
The ALEC model policy Military Crosswalk Act addresses this problem by instructing occupational licensing boards to accept equivalent military experience as satisfying state occupational license requirements. It also requires the occupational licensing board to consult with the state department of veteran services to determine which military skills, experience, credentials, education, and training are substantially equivalent to occupational licensing requirements and can substitute for the requirements. Further, the policy instructs the departments to collaborate on a publicly accessible resource that can inform veterans and transitioning service members about their qualifications for certain licenses.
Thirty-seven states have passed broad military crosswalk legislation and receive full credit. Other states receive partial credit for different approaches. Four states passed similar legislation that authorized, but did not require, the department to provide credit for equivalent military service. Another four passed crosswalk legislation for certain professions while excluding major categories of licenses. Mississippi’s language limits the crosswalk to current service members and does not include veterans. Four additional states have no programs and receive no credit.
Scoring Details
Military Crosswalk
- 10 points are awarded when a state has a broad military crosswalk statute.
- 5 points are awarded when a state has a limited military crosswalk statute for certain professions.
- 5 points are awarded when a state authorizes agencies to conduct a military crosswalk program.
- 5 points are awarded when a state has a military crosswalk statute for active-duty service members only.
| State | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Alaska | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Arizona | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Arkansas | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| California | 5 | Profession Specific |
| Colorado | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Connecticut | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Delaware | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Florida | 5 | Profession Specific |
| Georgia | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Hawaii | 0 | No Program |
| Idaho | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Illinois | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Indiana | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Iowa | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Kansas | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Kentucky | 5 | Authorized Crosswalk |
| Louisiana | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Maine | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Maryland | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Massachusetts | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Michigan | 5 | Authorized Crosswalk |
| Minnesota | 0 | No Program |
| Mississippi | 5 | Active Duty Only |
| Missouri | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Montana | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Nebraska | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Nevada | 0 | No Program |
| New Hampshire | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| New Jersey | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| New Mexico | 0 | No Program |
| New York | 5 | Authorized Crosswalk |
| North Carolina | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| North Dakota | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Ohio | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Oklahoma | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Oregon | 5 | Profession Specific |
| Pennsylvania | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Rhode Island | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| South Carolina | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| South Dakota | 5 | Authorized Crosswalk |
| Tennessee | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Texas | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Utah | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Vermont | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Virginia | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Washington | 5 | Profession Specific |
| West Virginia | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Wisconsin | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
| Wyoming | 10 | Broad Crosswalk |
Public-Private Partnerships
ALEC Policy Resource: Veteran Resource Center Act
The system designed to support veterans is one of the most expansive in the United States. Unfortunately, it is also highly fragmented. The federal government alone spends more than $300 billion each year to support dozens of veterans programs. States then add billions more for state and local programs, and the private sector includes an estimated 45,000 nonprofit organizations that are registered with the IRS as veteran-serving organizations.
Despite the vast resources dedicated to improving veteran well-being, limited coordination has resulted in inefficiencies, duplication, and gaps in service. Rather than duplicating existing resources, states should utilize public-private partnerships to connect veterans with community resources whenever possible.
The ALEC model policy Veteran Resource Center Act creates a structure for leveraging public-private partnerships to connect veterans to community resources. It creates a public corporation that is authorized to coordinate support services for veterans, service members, and their families, including benefits assistance, employment support, mental health programs, education and training opportunities, and family services. It also allows the center to use public-private partnerships, regional offices, online tools, and public or private funding to carry out its mission.
Among the strongest examples of states utilizing public-private partnerships to help veterans are veteran referral networks. These platforms allow state agencies to connect veterans with a broad range of public, private, and nonprofit resources through a single point of entry and a closed-loop referral system. Twelve states currently partner with veteran referral networks.
Scoring Details
Public-Private Coordination Infrastructure
- 5 points are awarded when a state has established, funded, or formally partnered with a statewide entity whose purpose is to connect veterans with community resources.
- 2 points are awarded when the statewide entity exists but is limited in scope to one area, such as employment or mental health.
Veteran Referral Technology
- 5 points are awarded if a state partners with a veteran referral network.
- 2 points are awarded if a state has a directory on its website that provides contact information to community resources across multiple categories.
| State | Score | Public-Private Coordination Infrastructure | Veteran Referral Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Alaska | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| California | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Colorado | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Florida | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Georgia | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Idaho | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Illinois | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Indiana | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Iowa | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Kansas | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Maine | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Maryland | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Massachusetts | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Michigan | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Minnesota | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Mississippi | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Montana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Nevada | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| New Hampshire | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| New Jersey | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| New York | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| North Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Oklahoma | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oregon | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Rhode Island | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| South Carolina | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| South Dakota | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Texas | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Utah | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Vermont | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Virginia | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Washington | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| West Virginia | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Chapter 3: Supporting Justice-Involved Veterans
Veterans Treatment Courts
ALEC Policy Resource: Veterans Treatment Court Act
After finishing their military service, most veterans transition successfully back to civilian life. Unfortunately, multiple deployments, combat experience, and service-related trauma exposure can leave some veterans struggling with the scars of war long after they return home. These veterans may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), and other service-related conditions. When untreated, these conditions are associated with an increased risk of involvement with the justice system.
Around 33% of veterans report having been arrested and booked into jail at least once in their lifetime, compared to less than 20% of non-veterans. Additionally, the 2025 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report found that the suicide rate for justice-involved veterans in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system was 263.7% higher than for other veterans in the VHA.
This reality has led states to create Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) to support justice-involved veterans. These specialty courts are modeled after drug courts and mental health courts and aim to address the underlying factors that contributed to a veteran’s criminal behavior. While no veteran has a right to admission, these courts generally serve veterans whose service-related conditions can be addressed through treatment, supervision, and other supportive services.
Forty-eight states currently have VTCs, but their structure, eligibility criteria, and procedures vary widely. Twenty-nine states have a statewide framework and uniform standards for VTCs, and only 14 have the standards codified in statute. The remaining 19 states leave operational standards to local courts, which allows for wide variability within a state. This potentially violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by giving veterans varying access to services within the same state.
The ALEC model policy Veterans Treatment Court Act addresses these concerns by establishing clear statewide standards for VTC structure, eligibility, and procedures. It establishes eligibility criteria, pre-plea and post-adjudication pathways for entry, court control over admission, and meaningful incentives for veterans who successfully complete treatment. Additionally, if an eligible veteran is charged in a jurisdiction that does not have a VTC, the policy creates a mechanism for the veteran to request his or her case be transferred to a jurisdiction with a VTC.
Scoring Details
Statewide Framework
- 5 points are awarded when a state has a statewide framework with uniform standards in statute.
- 2 points are awarded when the statewide framework is missing critical elements, such as eligibility criteria and completion incentive.
- 2 points are awarded when the statewide framework is established by the executive branch or judiciary branch outside of statute.
Broad Eligibility
- 1 point is awarded when the statewide framework allows the court to consider all veterans and service members for entry.
- 0 points are awarded when eligibility is not defined, limited by discharge status, or excludes service members.
Multiple Entry Pathways
- 1 point is awarded when the state allows eligible veterans and service members to enter a VTC pre-trial and post-adjudication.
- 0 points are awarded when only one entry pathway exists.
Admission Control
- 1 point is awarded when admission is controlled by the court.
- 0 points are awarded when admission is controlled by the prosecutor.
Completion Incentive
- 1 point is awarded when successful completion of VTC treatment guarantees a defined legal benefit.
Transfer Petition
- 1 point is awarded when a state allows eligible veterans to petition for transfer if their jurisdiction does not have a VTC.
| State | Score | Statewide Framework | Broad Eligibility | Multiple Entry Pathways | Admission Control | Completion Incentive | Transfer Petition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Alaska | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Colorado | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Connecticut | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 10 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Georgia | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Louisiana | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maine | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 8 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Missouri | 7 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Nevada | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| North Carolina | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oregon | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Texas | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Utah | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Diversion for Justice-Involved Veterans
ALEC Policy Resource: Veterans Justice Act
While Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) are the gold standard for supporting justice-involved veterans, not every county or judicial district will have sufficient resources or a veteran population to support a VTC. The ALEC model policy Veterans Justice Act helps ensure that justice-involved veterans in these areas are supported by empowering judges with alternative sentencing options for veterans with service-related conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder, military sexual trauma, and traumatic brain injury. Much like a VTC, these alternative sentencing options order the veteran to complete treatment under probation. Veterans who successfully complete their treatment program will avoid incarceration and have their charges reduced or dismissed, unless the judge finds that the veteran remains an ongoing risk to public safety.
Fourteen states have enacted some form of diversion program that resembles the Veterans Justice Act. To ensure that the policy empowers judges with adequate resources to support eligible veterans, the states are scored on having a veteran diversion program, providing incentives for successful completion, court control over admission, and broad discretion over eligibility.
Scoring Details
Diversion
- 4 points are awarded when a state has a veteran diversion statute.
Eligibility
- 2 points are awarded when a judge can use the diversion statute for any veteran or service member.
- 1 point is awarded when the diversion statute does not include service members.
- 0 points are awarded when a judge is prohibited from using the diversion statute based on a veteran’s discharge status or specific experience.
Completion Incentive
- 2 points are awarded when successful completion leads to charges being dismissed or reduced.
- 1 point is awarded when successful completion may lead to charges being dismissed or reduced.
Admission Control
- 1 point is awarded if the judge has full discretion over using the diversion statute.
- 0 points are awarded if the prosecutor controls entry.
Offense Type
- 1 point is awarded if the judge has full discretion over using the diversion statute for most offense types.
- 0 points are awarded if broad offense types, such as all felonies, are ineligible.
| State | Score | Diversion | Eligibility | Completion Incentive | Admission Control | Offense Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Alaska | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Colorado | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Delaware | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 9 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Georgia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 7 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Kentucky | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisiana | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Maine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maryland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Mississippi | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nevada | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| New Mexico | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oregon | 7 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Utah | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Washington | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chapter 4: Supporting Emerging Treatments for Service-Related Mental Health Conditions
Regulated Access to Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy
ALEC Policy Resource: The Therapeutic Psilocybin Act for Veterans and First Responders
Currently, treatment options for veterans with service-related mental health conditions are limited. Using post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as an example, trauma-focused therapy, the VA/DoD-recommended first-line treatment for PTSD, has an estimated dropout rate of 27.1%, and 50% of veterans who complete treatment still meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Second-line treatments involving FDA-approved medications for PTSD only achieve remission in about 20% to 30% of patients and often cause adverse side effects.
In response, researchers, federal agencies, and states are exploring options to expand access to alternative treatments. Psilocybin, the compound found in certain mushroom species, is gaining traction as one of the most promising.
Clinical research on psilocybin was extensive in the 1960s but was impeded in 1970 when it was classified as a Schedule I substance in the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule I substances are defined as “high abuse potential with no accepted medicinal use.” However, researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine and other academic institutions have questioned whether psilocybin fits this classification, citing research indicating that it has low potential for abuse, has no known lethal overdose threshold, and is being studied for therapeutic applications across multiple conditions.
Research interest began to reemerge in the early 2000s, with multiple studies reporting significant reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms. One recent study reported a 58% remission rate for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) 12 months post-treatment, a condition that commonly co-occurs with PTSD. In addition to clinical research, observational data from nonprofit-led psilocybin retreats have drawn attention. One study examining veterans who attended a psilocybin retreat in Jamaica reported average improvements of 38% in depression symptoms, 30.4% in anxiety symptoms, and 24.8% in PTSD symptoms.
This growing body of research and institutional engagement has helped move psilocybin-assisted therapy from academic study into state policy action. In the past few years, Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico have led by enacting legislation to provide access to psilocybin-assisted therapy through regulated access programs. Additionally, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Utah, and Washington have established pilot programs or research programs for psilocybin-assisted therapy.
These programs do not allow recreational psilocybin use. Instead, they provide a framework for providers to administer psilocybin-assisted therapy to patients in need. In Oregon, over 38,000 psilocybin products have been sold for medicinal use with fewer than 30 calls for emergency services, and a recent real-world study from the Oregon program found significant improvements in depression, anxiety, and general well-being.
The ALEC model policy Therapeutic Psilocybin Act for Veterans and First Responders provides states with a framework for establishing a regulated access program for psilocybin-assisted therapy while setting clear guardrails that prioritize patient safety, provider accountability, and legislative oversight. By providing a clear state-led framework, the Act allows lawmakers to lead on mental health policy while maintaining oversight, accountability, and public trust.
Scoring Details
Meaningful Access
- 10 points are awarded when a state has established a regulated access program for psilocybin-assisted therapy.
- 5 points are awarded when a state has established a pilot program or research program for psilocybin-assisted therapy.
| State | Meaningful Access |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 |
| Alaska | 0 |
| Arizona | 0 |
| Arkansas | 0 |
| California | 0 |
| Colorado | 10 |
| Connecticut | 5 |
| Delaware | 0 |
| Florida | 0 |
| Georgia | 0 |
| Hawaii | 0 |
| Idaho | 0 |
| Illinois | 0 |
| Indiana | 5 |
| Iowa | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 |
| Kentucky | 0 |
| Louisiana | 5 |
| Maine | 0 |
| Maryland | 5 |
| Massachusetts | 0 |
| Michigan | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 |
| Mississippi | 0 |
| Missouri | 0 |
| Montana | 0 |
| Nebraska | 0 |
| Nevada | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 0 |
| New Jersey | 5 |
| New Mexico | 10 |
| New York | 0 |
| North Carolina | 0 |
| North Dakota | 0 |
| Ohio | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 0 |
| Oregon | 10 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 |
| South Carolina | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 |
| Tennessee | 0 |
| Texas | 0 |
| Utah | 5 |
| Vermont | 0 |
| Virginia | 0 |
| Washington | 5 |
| West Virginia | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 |
Research Funding for Ibogaine-Assisted Therapy
ALEC Policy Resource: Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act
For veterans who have not experienced relief through traditional treatments, another emerging treatment for service-related mental health conditions is ibogaine-assisted therapy. Ibogaine is a naturally occurring psychoactive compound found in the root bark of the iboga plant in West Africa. In 2024, Stanford Medicine published a study that found an 88% reduction in PTSD symptoms for combat veterans after a single session with ibogaine. This study, along with anecdotal stories from veterans who traveled overseas for ibogaine-assisted therapy, has helped drive interest in clinical research.
The average new drug costs over $1 billion and takes more than 10 years to develop through the FDA approval process. Ordinarily, private drug developers can recover these costs through patent-protected sales following FDA approval. Ibogaine presents a unique challenge because a patent covering its use for opioid addiction expired in 2003, reducing the traditional financial incentive for a private company to fund clinical development.
To help close this funding gap, states have begun using public investment to attract private and philanthropic support for FDA-compliant clinical trials. In 2025, Texas and Arizona allocated $50 million and $5 million, respectively, to fund clinical trials using ibogaine as an investigational new drug. The Texas law also established a multistate research consortium to coordinate research across participating states. Shortly after, the ALEC Veterans and Military Affairs Task Force approved the Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act as model policy, which provides a template for states to join the research effort. Since then, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma have joined the multistate consortium.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) to partner with states in this research effort. The EO allocated at least $50 million from existing funds to support and partner with state governments, created collaboration pathways across governments and research institutions to enhance data sharing, and expedited approval for psychedelic research by providing Commissioner’s National Priority Vouchers for certain psychedelic drugs.
Unlike psilocybin, ibogaine remains an investigational treatment and is not yet available through state-regulated access programs. Because of this, states are evaluated based on the steps they have taken to advance clinical development. The scoring criteria recognize states that have established an ibogaine research fund or similar mechanism, committed state funding to clinical research, and enacted language supporting participation in the multistate research consortium.
Scoring Details
Research Funding
- 8 points are awarded when a state has allocated funds for ibogaine research.
- 4 points are awarded when a state has created financial pathways to fund ibogaine research but has not yet allocated funds.
Consortium Participation
- 2 points are awarded when a state statute requires participation in the multistate consortium.
- 1 point is awarded when a state statute says the research institution may participate in the multistate consortium.
| State | Score | Research Funding | Consortium Participation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alaska | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colorado | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Connecticut | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Georgia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Idaho | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Louisiana | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Maine | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Maryland | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Missouri | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nevada | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Oregon | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Texas | 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Utah | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vermont | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 0 | 0 | 0 |
ALEC Model Policies
The ALEC Veterans and Military Affairs Task Force has considered and adopted a variety of model policies that empower state legislators to support veterans, service members, and military families. These model policies represent best practices that have been scrutinized, debated, and approved by our members. Below is a selection of those model policies that provided the basis for this index.
Supporting Military Families
Supporting Veterans Through Transition
Supporting Justice-Involved Veterans
Supporting Emerging Treatments for Service-Related Mental Health Conditions
- The Therapeutic Psilocybin Act for Veterans and First Responders
- Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act
Guiding Principles
State Pages
| State | Rank | Total Score | Military Families | Veteran Transition | Justice-Involved Veterans | Emerging Treatments | Veterans per Capita (Rank) | Military Population (Rank) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 23 | 41/100 | 13/40 | 20/20 | 8/20 | 0/20 | 7.45% (10) | 27,645 (21) |
| Alaska | 35 | 34/100 | 24/40 | 10/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 9.90% (1) | 25,133 (23) |
| Arizona | 3 | 60/100 | 23/40 | 20/20 | 9/20 | 8/20 | 7.41% (12) | 30,574 (18) |
| Arkansas | 7 | 51/100 | 32/40 | 12/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 6.92% (25) | 14,845 (34) |
| California | 21 | 43/100 | 18/40 | 12/20 | 13/20 | 0/20 | 4.02% (47) | 218,061 (1) |
| Colorado | 4 | 59/100 | 31/40 | 10/20 | 3/20 | 15/20 | 6.98% (23) | 48,219 (11) |
| Connecticut | 13 | 48/100 | 24/40 | 10/20 | 9/20 | 5/20 | 4.41% (45) | 13,046 (36) |
| Delaware | 8 | 50/100 | 31/40 | 17/20 | 2/20 | 0/20 | 7.18% (17) | 8,216 (42) |
| Florida | 2 | 65/100 | 34/40 | 12/20 | 19/20 | 0/20 | 6.95% (24) | 107,232 (5) |
| Georgia | 30 | 37/100 | 10/40 | 20/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 7.03% (21) | 93,135 (6) |
| Hawaii | 49 | 18/100 | 16/40 | 2/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 7.56% (7) | 56,938 (8) |
| Idaho | 26 | 39/100 | 18/40 | 17/20 | 4/20 | 0/20 | 7.43% (11) | 7,134 (45) |
| Illinois | 28 | 39/100 | 11/40 | 20/20 | 8/20 | 0/20 | 4.53% (44) | 46,521 (13) |
| Indiana | 11 | 49/100 | 14/40 | 17/20 | 5/20 | 13/20 | 5.92% (37) | 16,671 (31) |
| Iowa | 43 | 29/100 | 17/40 | 12/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 6.19% (33) | 11,015 (39) |
| Kansas | 34 | 35/100 | 16/40 | 12/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 6.65% (29) | 29,434 (20) |
| Kentucky | 37 | 33/100 | 19/40 | 7/20 | 1/20 | 6/20 | 6.21% (32) | 40,389 (14) |
| Louisiana | 17 | 46/100 | 13/40 | 15/20 | 11/20 | 7/20 | 6.02% (36) | 29,830 (19) |
| Maine | 15 | 46/100 | 26/40 | 14/20 | 6/20 | 0/20 | 7.59% (6) | 3,937 (49) |
| Maryland | 10 | 49/100 | 24/40 | 20/20 | 0/20 | 5/20 | 6.83% (27) | 48,371 (10) |
| Massachusetts | 18 | 46/100 | 22/40 | 15/20 | 9/20 | 0/20 | 3.95% (48) | 17,904 (29) |
| Michigan | 47 | 24/100 | 6/40 | 12/20 | 6/20 | 0/20 | 5.42% (42) | 15,849 (33) |
| Minnesota | 38 | 33/100 | 8/40 | 7/20 | 18/20 | 0/20 | 5.49% (41) | 17,994 (28) |
| Mississippi | 27 | 39/100 | 17/40 | 5/20 | 7/20 | 10/20 | 6.26% (31) | 25,824 (22) |
| Missouri | 31 | 37/100 | 16/40 | 14/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 7.02% (22) | 32,412 (16) |
| Montana | 36 | 34/100 | 24/40 | 10/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 8.44% (3) | 6,991 (46) |
| Nebraska | 16 | 46/100 | 26/40 | 17/20 | 3/20 | 0/20 | 6.41% (30) | 12,182 (37) |
| Nevada | 25 | 40/100 | 17/40 | 4/20 | 19/20 | 0/20 | 7.18% (18) | 18,968 (26) |
| New Hampshire | 9 | 50/100 | 26/40 | 17/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 7.03% (20) | 5,228 (48) |
| New Jersey | 14 | 48/100 | 15/40 | 20/20 | 8/20 | 5/20 | 3.35% (50) | 24,850 (24) |
| New Mexico | 22 | 41/100 | 23/40 | 5/20 | 3/20 | 10/20 | 7.46% (9) | 17,807 (30) |
| New York | 50 | 15/100 | 6/40 | 7/20 | 2/20 | 0/20 | 3.47% (49) | 47,506 (12) |
| North Carolina | 19 | 45/100 | 20/40 | 20/20 | 5/20 | 0/20 | 7.23% (16) | 116,504 (4) |
| North Dakota | 29 | 38/100 | 18/40 | 10/20 | 10/20 | 0/20 | 6.86% (26) | 11,771 (38) |
| Ohio | 44 | 29/100 | 14/40 | 12/20 | 3/20 | 0/20 | 6.15% (34) | 31,817 (17) |
| Oklahoma | 5 | 52/100 | 34/40 | 10/20 | 2/20 | 6/20 | 7.53% (8) | 34,415 (15) |
| Oregon | 33 | 36/100 | 10/40 | 7/20 | 9/20 | 10/20 | 6.77% (28) | 9,651 (40) |
| Pennsylvania | 41 | 30/100 | 10/40 | 20/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 5.76% (39) | 23,424 (25) |
| Rhode Island | 42 | 30/100 | 10/40 | 20/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 4.80% (43) | 8,543 (41) |
| South Carolina | 39 | 32/100 | 12/40 | 20/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 8.07% (5) | 54,956 (9) |
| South Dakota | 48 | 23/100 | 16/40 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 7.39% (13) | 7,978 (43) |
| Tennessee | 20 | 44/100 | 20/40 | 20/20 | 3/20 | 1/20 | 7.11% (19) | 18,936 (27) |
| Texas | 1 | 66/100 | 28/40 | 20/20 | 8/20 | 10/20 | 6.02% (35) | 171,544 (2) |
| Utah | 6 | 52/100 | 30/40 | 12/20 | 5/20 | 5/20 | 4.27% (46) | 16,383 (32) |
| Vermont | 46 | 26/100 | 14/40 | 12/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 5.71% (40) | 2,923 (50) |
| Virginia | 12 | 48/100 | 22/40 | 17/20 | 9/20 | 0/20 | 8.86% (2) | 150,114 (3) |
| Washington | 24 | 40/100 | 23/40 | 12/20 | 0/20 | 5/20 | 7.29% (15) | 71,877 (7) |
| West Virginia | 40 | 31/100 | 12/40 | 12/20 | 7/20 | 0/20 | 7.31% (14) | 7,191 (44) |
| Wisconsin | 45 | 27/100 | 12/40 | 15/20 | 0/20 | 0/20 | 5.77% (38) | 13,795 (35) |
| Wyoming | 32 | 36/100 | 22/40 | 12/20 | 2/20 | 0/20 | 8.14% (4) | 6,182 (47) |
Key Takeaways
Texas Ranks 1st
The Lone Star State leads the inaugural publication through its comprehensive approach to helping veterans transition to civilian life and supporting research into emerging treatments for service-related mental health conditions.
Room to Grow
The #1 state only receives 66/100 points, demonstrating that every state has room to improve their veterans and military affairs policies.
States Play A Critical Role
“States play a critical role in ensuring our veterans and military families have the opportunities and resources they need to succeed.” ~ Iowa Speaker Pro Tempore and Public Sector Chair of ALEC’s Veterans and Military Affairs Task Force John Wills.
Read the Report
Dive into the full report, section by section, with data, analysis, and policy recommendations from ALEC.
Download