As a principal research scientist at NORC and licensed clinical psychologist, I’ve spent over two decades studying the well-being of Veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. What drives my work isn’t just academic curiosity—it’s the recognition that Veterans will derive the most benefit from research that matches the complexity of their experiences and delivers meaningful impact for their lives.

My path to Veterans research began during graduate school when I contributed to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-sponsored study assessing PTSD treatments. Even then, in 2008, we found that, while effective treatments existed, there were significant barriers to effective implementation, including high treatment attrition and limited access to trained providers. That experience launched my commitment to research that influences policy and improves services—work that has the potential to enhance the quality of life for Veterans and their families.

I’ve since had the opportunity to contribute to research that encompasses the full spectrum of health and social supports that shape Veterans’ lives, including health care, housing stability, employment, financial literacy, family well-being, and community reintegration.

I’ve learned that truly understanding Veteran experiences means looking beyond the individual to the systems that shape their well-being. Research must evolve to match the dynamic complexity of Veterans’ lives—incorporating family dynamics, community factors, and longterm outcomes—to drive informed, lasting change.

I find that my clinical background provides a unique perspective in shaping and leading large-scale Veteran studies. When I sit across from a Veteran in a clinical assessment setting and hear them share their experiences—sometimes for the first time—it gives life and meaning to my research. These aren’t generalizable encounters, but they fundamentally shape how I approach study design and interpretation.

My clinical work and research supporting Veterans have both taught me that fully understanding their experiences requires looking beyond the individual to examine the complex systems that shape their well-being. For example, when assessing military sexual trauma, clinical encounters reveal that often it wasn’t the trauma itself that caused the most longterm damage—it was the sense of betrayal upon feeling that the institutional systems did not provide sufficient support or justice. These insights help shape how we measure these experiences in population studies, ensuring we capture critical aspects of Veterans’ experiences, rather than narrowly defining the traumatic exposure.

NORC’s work on the VA’s ASCEND study represents this comprehensive approach. ASCEND is a national surveillance study of non-fatal suicidal behaviors and ideation among all Veterans—and the phrase “all Veterans” is crucial. Although many studies are limited to Veterans seeking care within the Veterans Health Administration, most Veterans actually get their health care through private insurers or community providers. This reality is a massive blind spot that ASCEND helps address.

As a senior behavioral health advisor on ASCEND, I’ve been involved from design through analysis and dissemination. What makes this study methodologically unique is that it’s not just looking at individual-level factors. We’re examining community-level and environmental influences—relevant legislation in different regions, perceived community support, and access to lethal means.

The surveillance approach allows the VA to track patterns over time rather than relying on isolated snapshots. Each successive year of data adds depth to our understanding of evolving trends, enabling more informed adjustments to suicide prevention and behavioral health services.

By linking these trends to policy changes and programmatic developments, we can better assess what’s working and where gaps remain. The potential of robust, nationally representative longitudinal surveillance data is immense—it equips decision-makers with the empirical insights needed to respond to Veterans’ changing needs and to refine strategies accordingly.

The Wounded Warrior Project represents another example of this complexity-focused approach. The project offers multiple services—such as employment support, family programs, and mental health resources—and they are invested in providing holistic support for wounded warriors and their families to improve outcomes. Over the past several years, NORC has helped improve the Annual Warrior Survey for the Wounded Warrior Project to comprehensively assess the experiences of those it serves—Veterans who experienced serious injuries or illnesses during warzone service.

One of our key contributions was enhancing the survey to allow for tracking changes over time. This change is significant because recovery and functioning across domains (e.g., employment, physical and mental health, social engagement, family functioning) don’t necessarily follow simple linear paths. By following the same individuals over time, we can better understand how post-9/11 wounded warriors’ functioning and service needs have evolved, how they have navigated the disparate programs and services available to them, and where gaps persist.

Some of my most rewarding work happens in the context of interdisciplinary research teams. I collaborate with economists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, public health researchers, and methodologists who bring their unique perspectives to the table, challenging assumptions and collectively strengthening our research design.

For example, when studying Veterans’ employment outcomes, we must consider a wide range of factors—individual training and skills, labor market dynamics, family support systems, operational supports like child care, self-efficacy, and community or organizational attitudes. No single discipline can fully capture this complexity.

This collaborative approach is especially crucial when working with understudied Veteran populations such as women Veterans, those in rural areas, minority groups, and those recently separated from military service. Not surprisingly, the experiences of these groups often differ in systematic ways from those of the broader Veteran population, and our research methods must be sufficiently nuanced and robust to reflect these differences.

The Veterans Insight Panel (VIP)—a partnership between NORC and RAND—marks an exciting advancement in Veterans research. This new, nationally representative online panel enables targeted sampling of Veterans with specific experiences—such as those recently separated from service, military families navigating transition, or individuals seeking care in community settings rather than through the VA—to address a broad array of research needs.

This kind of targeted recruitment is essential for addressing research gaps in order to understand and promote Veterans’ well-being. The VIP will support objectives including but not limited to helping Veterans and their families as they transition away from active-duty service, improving connection to evidence-based behavioral health and substance use services, and understanding and optimizing health care experiences both within and outside of the Veterans Health Administration. The panel’s usefulness could be further enhanced by linking to administrative data, expanding the scope and depth of analysis on these issues.

What excites me most about this new panel is its potential to inform more responsive research. Research tends to lag behind where we need it to be, but having an established panel in place means we can take the pulse on emerging issues in close to real time. Whether it’s informing immediate policy decisions or serving as the foundation for more comprehensive longitudinal studies, the panel provides a rigorous avenue for efficient and dynamic research designs.

• Match complexity with methodological sophistication: Veterans are a heterogeneous population, living in diverse communities with varied service, risk and resilience factors, and life experiences. Research must account for this through longitudinal designs, inclusive sampling, expansive and rigorous measurement, and examination of system-level factors.
• Integrate clinical insights with population research: Understanding individual experiences can inform more responsive measurement of related constructs to reflect ‘real-world’ experiences and help contextualize results, ensuring we capture the full complexity of Veterans’ challenges and strengths.
• Embrace interdisciplinary collaboration: Veterans’ lives reflect intersecting health, employment, family, social, and community domains, requiring diverse expertise to assess and understand outcomes comprehensively.
• Focus beyond the individual: Community support, family dynamics, and structural factors significantly influence Veteran well-being and must be incorporated into research designs.

Veterans research has tremendous potential to inform policy, but only when it’s designed with rigor, relevance, and implementation in mind. This is an important time to leverage the major gains and investments in Veterans research over the past decades, and to zero in on issues that will have the greatest impact for Veteran communities.

For instance, as more Veterans receive care in community settings, we need more nuanced data on workforce preparedness, evidence-based care, and service coordination. We also need to understand what wrapround supports are most effective for Veterans and their families as they transition from active-duty service.

Ideally, research should inform real-world decisions—especially those related to resource allocation and program refinement.

The Veterans Insight Panel represents one tool in this broader effort—a systematic approach to ensuring Veterans’ voices inform the policies and programs designed to serve them. Research that captures the full complexity of Veterans’ experiences is a powerful instrument for meaningful and lasting change.