Launching the RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute

RAND recently celebrated the launch of the RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute. We invite you to join this RAND Remote conversation with the institute’s directors and other special guests. They discuss veterans policy issues and RAND’s work to help meet the needs of diverse veteran populations.

The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute was established with a generous gift from Daniel J. Epstein through the Epstein Family Foundation. The Institute is dedicated to conducting innovative, interdisciplinary, evidence-based research to improve the lives of those who have served in the U.S. military.

Transcript

Quil Lawrence

I'm sure you all know Jeremy Butler from IAVA and Rajeev Ramchand and Carrie M. Farmer from RAND, who have been mentioned already. They are some of my dearest sources—and friends, I should add. And so I was delighted when they asked me to come down and moderate a discussion about this new initiative.

And the first question I have really is, why do you need this institution? Do vets need help? And that question I know is asked in a little bit of a naive way. But, really, because there is such a divide between the small percentage of this country that's experienced war, especially in the last 20 years, and those who have feelings and thoughts about it but have no direct experience. So I wanted to ask you all to reflect on that first, and maybe starting with, we could start with Rajeev.

Jeremy Butler

There he goes. See, he tried to pawn it off on me. I know.

Quil Lawrence

Jeremy's saying, "not me, not me."

Rajeev Ramchand

Yeah. I think that, you know, there's evidence to suggest that veterans absolutely need support and need help. We are, as you said, and I think it's a very important point to echo, that this is the time in our history where the fewest civilians know somebody who's ever served in the military. So there's a gap in understanding and in perhaps public awareness of veterans, the costs of military service. So I just want to start there.

And then to the point, Michael, that you raised earlier, we did conduct a study at the launch of the institute to understand public perceptions about support for veterans, and the majority—87 percent—said the government needs to do more to support its veterans. So I do think that there's a lot of areas of support that are needed, and I think that research is needed to identify those areas, and to Michael's point, identify the best solutions.

In my own area of research, suicide prevention, I know Caitlin Thompson, who used to work at the VA's Office of Suicide Prevention—many people here have worked on this challenging issue of veteran suicide prevention. That's a key point. Veteran suicide is higher than civilian suicides, so that—the rate of veteran suicides today is much higher than the civilian rate of suicide. And so we need to be addressing these issues. But I'll pass it over to Carrie.

Carrie M. Farmer

Well, I would answer that by: Some veterans need help. Not all veterans need help. Not all veterans are like this gentleman here with his head in his hands. And so, many veterans have a very successful transition to civilian life. Our leaders in our country, many of you here are veterans, very successful. So I would answer that question that some veterans need help, and we really need to concentrate our efforts and resources on those veterans. That we really owe them, as a country, for their service, and really need to be attending to the best and most evidence-based approaches to supporting veterans who need help across the gamut, whether it is from a mental health perspective, whether it is employment, supporting education, across all areas of well-being to support veterans.

Quil Lawrence

In the survey that you did of American attitudes toward veterans, how did that reflect this idea? Because there is this dichotomy of hero worship, which is, you know, it often turns into this sort of objectification, which goes hand-in-hand with a stereotype of a broken veteran. I guess if you don't know the community well enough, if you're not connected to it well enough to know that not all vets are one thing—heroes—you also won't realize that they're also not another thing—broken veterans. In the survey that you guys did, did you see that reflected?

Rajeev Ramchand

I mean, I think the most interesting thing was we had a webinar to the release of the survey and we were able to, you know, use our philanthropic resources to have a webinar. And we had a discussion. And Phil Carter, who's here, and Kayla Williams, who's here, were part of that moderated discussion. And that was the topic that was most discussed, which is, you know, if veterans meet—if 87 percent of Americans think veterans need support, why do they think that? Where do they think the government is falling short? Is that, does that reflect actual need, or is that, does that reflect something else? And so I think it's something that we'll continue to challenge, continue to pursue in research. But I do—it's a great question.

Carrie M. Farmer

Yeah. I think a lot of it is not—maybe not a lot of awareness of all of the things that we as a country are doing to support veterans. All of the resources that are available to veterans through VA. All of the amazing veteran service organizations, which many of you here represent, that are serving veterans. So it's not that there are no resources. And maybe it is communication, connecting veterans to existing resources. So it's not that we have to start all over again and reinvent veterans' resources from scratch.

Jeremy Butler

Can I just add—sorry, if I could, real quick—I think often what it is, is that veterans aren't asking for something extra. Usually what it is—and if you go back in history, this has always been the case—veterans are asking for promises that have been made to them to be kept. And that's, are you talking about health care? Are you talking about the GI Bill keeping up with the increased cost of education? We're talking a lot about toxic exposure now. Generally, it's veterans fighting for the things that they were promised when they signed on the dotted line. And then once they're out of uniform, they're turning and finding that, be it the VA, be it whatever it might be, are not keeping up with those promises, not keeping up with the needs that veterans and their families have.

Quil Lawrence

Those are topics I think we'll hit in tonight's panel. But another thing about the timeliness of this initiative right now, and I want to ask Jeremy about this, is that, as we all know, the 20 years of war, even if they're not completely over, they do seem to have come to a bookend with the events in Afghanistan this summer, which I know really gripped some parts of the veteran community. And I want to ask Jeremy about that, especially, you know, being with IAVA. I mean, that's your population. What does this moment mean, that moment mean, for veterans, the end of 20 years of war and the way it ended?

Jeremy Butler

Absolutely. It's, really, it's something that is both incredibly frustrating, challenging, but also galvanizing. I don't think there's been a time, you know, I've been with IAVA for six years. I've been in the military for 21 years. I'm still in the reserves now. I don't think there's been an issue that has brought the veteran and military community together more than the end of the war in Afghanistan. And the focus of that, I think, really has been around the need to take care of those that we fought alongside with in Afghanistan.

I kind of break it down into three areas right now that we're looking at. One, we need to take care of those Afghan allies that have got out. That successfully got out of the country and are here now. That's a small fraction, though, of the larger total.

So the second part is really continuing the fight to get those that are still left behind out. And the numbers aren't really known. The number that I hear often is above 100,000 that are still in the country that we still need to get out. And that's special immigrant visa holders, their families, other P-1 and P-2 eligible Afghans that supported the U.S. military throughout the 20 years.

And then the other part is making sure that we learn the lessons of the last 20 years. I think that's been the most frustrating thing that I saw, is that if you looked at the hearings that have been had so far around the Afghan war, there's been two primary discussion topics. It was either that the problems in Afghanistan were the fault of President Biden's withdrawal, or the problems were the fault of President Trump's Doha agreement from 2020. That's as far and as in-depth as they went, when the reality is that for 20 years there had been mistakes made. There had been a lack of resources. There had been a lack of congressional oversight. You could go on and on. And I think if we don't as a country focus on that, we're going to make those mistakes again. I think they're very similar to the mistakes that were made during and after Vietnam. And here we are again.

And I think if we don't focus on those three issues, we're going to be in trouble. And I think we're already kind of slipping away from that time where the country is focused on those.

So I think the short answer to your question, now that I've gone on to the long answer, is that I think this is a galvanizing time for the veteran community to make sure that we really continue to keep our promises and learn the lessons that we need to.

Quil Lawrence

We interviewed the VA secretary recently for NPR. He said that there had been a significant, and not huge, but a noticeable uptick in calls to the Veterans Crisis Line around this time. But I was fascinated by the fact that he said it was not just Afghanistan veterans who were being triggered by this or feeling a sense of a moral injury about what was happening. It was other vets from other eras, certainly from the Vietnam era, who were feeling a sense of deja vu, or feeling that this was the past repeating itself.

But speaking about the crisis line, I was interested in your future projects about suicide and data around suicide. Because, I mean, I understand that one of the challenges is, it is such a rare event, even as we talk about it being something that happens more often among especially younger veterans, if I'm not wrong, than in their cohort in the civilian population. What are your research goals and interests on that subject?

Rajeev Ramchand

There's so many. Right now, we are interested in thinking about community approaches to suicide prevention. So, a lot of effort right now is focused on health care facilities. But we're thinking about, how can we bring suicide prevention to unemployment offices, to homeless shelters, to other organizations where—prisons and jails—where veterans might be, as well as others who are at risk for suicide? And how can we embed evidence-based practices in those settings so that we capture the most vulnerable and the most at risk?

But to your point, there's a significant effort right now happening on data on suicides, the need for more timely data on suicide and more quality. So right now, as an example, they just released data on suicides nationally from 2019. You know, the VA has 20— or, nationally, 2020, 2019—

Quil Lawrence

That's veterans' data?

Rajeev Ramchand

Yeah, and it doesn't have anything to do with the VA. It's really just our death investigation jurisdiction system in the United States is just very slow. And so we're kind of looking at, like, a rearview mirror whenever we're looking at suicide data. And if we want to keep track of things, we need to be investing in more current efforts. So there's a lot of effort underway right now to get, to produce more timely, and more accurate, and better-quality data on suicide so that we can address it in a more timely fashion so that we're not looking at, you know, two years ago what the suicide rate was.

Quil Lawrence

Why isn't that possible at the moment? Is it? If that's not a terribly hard question, I don't know.

Rajeev Ramchand

I mean, there's thousands of death investigation jurisdictions where coroners and medical examiners make those determinations. Some of them are very under-resourced. Some of them use fax machines, for example, some that use paper and pencil to collect data and transmit data to the CDC. So it's just a, it's, you have one county that's under-resourced, and it can hold up the entire national data repository, if you will.

Quil Lawrence

So they have to wait for the slowest report or two.

Rajeev Ramchand

Yeah.

Quil Lawrence

All right. I'm interested that the first study will be about caregivers. I mean, we're in a very interesting moment for that, because after starting a caregiver program at the VA, which I think I've called in my reporting kind of a "catastrophic success"—they thought, wouldn't it be nice if we just start this little caregiver program? And then the VA was immediately overwhelmed and almost broken by the demand. You know, which is to say, veterans really wanted this. They really needed it. They really got upset when they felt they were being denied it, and they came to reporters and talked about it. So now, with the VA expanding that across eras, I'm wondering what sort of new interest you have on that and where you're—I mean, it's gonna be one of your first—

Rajeev Ramchand

I know, I'm looking at Steve and Rashi, am I allowed to share the details? I think we're looking to create more granular-level data before we produce national estimates. So, what do the needs look like at the state level? We're interested in identifying people's use of the service, people's—of federal services and whether they're using these programs. If they're not using them, why not? If they are, why? We're interested in their experiences within health care facilities to understand kind of how they're—whether they feel welcomed within health care systems, whether caregivers actually feel welcomed when they go and they wait five hours for their loved one to go through physical therapy or something of that sort. So we're trying to really better understand, I think. That's kind of how I've been thinking about it, is just that more granular level to understand. You know, we've had the national picture, but how are actually caregivers doing in communities?

Quil Lawrence

I keep on looking like I'm asking just Rajeev the questions, because we're all in one straight line up here, and I can't see past, so if either of you want to—

Carrie M. Farmer

Well, I was just going to say Quil knows a lot about caregiving from his podcast, which I just have to promote and recommend, Rough Translation. He did—it's a podcast about the military-to-civilian transition and issues that come up, but he did a fantastic, deep interview with a couple, of a veteran who is a triple amputee and his caregiver wife, and the challenges that they face. So if you haven't listened to it, I have to highly recommend.

Quil Lawrence

Thank you very much.

Carrie M. Farmer

I'll promote you.

Jeremy Butler

I would just add—I would double that. I thought it was a great podcast as well. And I would also add, you know, caregiver support isn't something that is one of IAVA's focuses. But we definitely hear from caregivers that are frustrated, that need support, that need help. So it's one of those where, you know, I applaud RAND for focusing on that because I think there's going to be a groundswell of findings that there is not enough resources for the caregiver community, who shoulders just an unbelievable burden, I think, and is probably in a very under-resourced area, and so I look forward to seeing what comes from that.

Quil Lawrence

Is that a generational thing, you think? That it's less of a priority for IAVA's population?

Jeremy Butler

It's funny that you ask that, because again, I don't want to, you know, I'm not as smart as some of those on this panel. So I'm just sort of carrying, you know, on some of the things I've heard. But, like, one of the biggest frustrations that we heard, there's a misconception about IAVA that we only care about post-9/11 veterans because that's our focus area. And so I don't want to put a whole lot of stock in some of the trolling that we get online. But every time we would pose something about the VA's post-9/11 caregiver program, we tend to get flooded with pre-9/11 caregivers saying, "What about us? You're forgetting about us. We need help. We've been here doing this for years. Why are you forgetting about us?" And so I don't think it's a generational thing. I think it's an every-era thing, and I think it's just an unmet need that we don't know enough about.

Quil Lawrence

I noticed another one of your priorities is veterans' homelessness, and particularly in Los Angeles, which—I think I did a story six or eight years ago on how the VA and the community, the large network of community organizations that have been working on homelessness for a long time, had really hit a formula that in a way had solved it. You were talking about correct answers to public policy problems. And they had figured out that through some ideas like Housing First, and through getting local communities involved, that they could just conduct a census of the homeless veterans. And even though it's a population that will go in and out of homelessness day by day, that they could find their names, and there were maybe only a thousand of them, say, in New Orleans, and they could figure out who they were and house them, that kind of thing, if they put the resources in there. That doesn't seem to have worked yet in Los Angeles. And I don't know if it's just a economic reality of the price of housing, or if you have some reflections on that or what questions that you'll be looking at.

Rajeev Ramchand

So we have two projects underway right now. I'll talk about the first one, and then Carrie can talk about the second one.

The first one, so this is coming out on Veterans Day. And this was a study that the Epstein Family Foundation also funded. So we identified 26 veterans from the streets in Los Angeles, and we interviewed them every month for a year to understand whether they got housed, how they got housed, what their housing preferences were. Again, that's coming out Veterans Day. But there's, I think, 10 percent of the nation, 11 percent of the nation—and RAND is based in Santa Monica. So we have a, you know, Los Angeles is home for many of us. Not me, unfortunately, but it is home for many of us. And so we do have a special kind of interest, but it's also where the need is greatest in Southern California.

And you know, I'll say that the majority of them did not receive permanent housing by the end. Many of them who receive transitional housing are at risk for losing their housing because they got it through things like Project Roomkey. That was a COVID-related kind of solution, but hotels now aren't leasing out their spaces. So it is something that's very worrisome.

I think what's important about this study that we did is we not only followed them every month for a year, but we asked them what their preferences were. What kind of housing do you want? And they had preferences. So if you provided housing, but they weren't allowed to bring their dog, they weren't going to choose to go to that house. Or if you provided housing that had communal bathrooms or that didn't have any sense of autonomy or independence, they were going to choose to live on the streets. So just thinking about and asking veterans who are in the space what their preferences are was really important. But I'll have Carrie talk about the other effort that just started.

Carrie M. Farmer

Yeah, so we also have a project at RAND that, it will be interviewing the veterans who own Veterans Row, who are on the VA campus. This has been a big initiative from the secretary to have those veterans housed by Monday. So really right away, no delay. So whether that's possible by Monday or not, I don't know. And so our research team is rapidly trying to contact and interview those veterans to really find out how their transition goes. And sort of what happens in this phase.

Quil Lawrence

The signature injury of the recent wars is traumatic brain injury, something that—TBI—that I don't think entered many of our vocabularies until veterans started coming home with this. And I'm wondering if, Jeremy, is that still—? I think that was, again, something that for—and I hate, I hate to keep on generalizing that you just do Iraq and Afghanistan, though it is in your name.

Jeremy Butler

We brought it on ourselves.

Quil Lawrence

Right. And I'm wondering if that is something that still, has there been a lot of progress made on that issue? From an injury that at first wasn't recognized, or even, I've spoken to veterans who have trouble getting ready for it, because it happened before TBIs were known. That kind of thing, is that still a large portion of it?

Jeremy Butler

Absolutely, yeah. And I think one of the biggest, maybe, areas to still get over and also maybe where we've made a lot of progress is the realization that TBIs are as serious as they are and that they have such an effect on so many other areas. It's not just a physical injury, it's not just an invisible injury, but it's something that can affect and result in other-than-honorable discharges, which has a cascading effect.

I think the biggest progress that we've made, and I'm certainly open to other thoughts on this as I'm not the expert here, but I think the biggest progress that we've made is realizing that it's a real injury that has incredible consequences not just for veterans, but for active duty military, that often begins a cascading process that leads to other issues, especially when it goes undiagnosed. But that said, I think there's still a lot to be done to right those wrongs and to understand the full scope of the solutions around it from a medical standpoint.

Carrie M. Farmer

Yeah. And we have, we've been doing a project that's funded by the Wounded Warrior Project around the long-term outcomes from traumatic brain injury. And so that is a report that will be out in the next couple of months. But really trying to wrap our heads around, there's been a lot of investment in research for this population, but a lot of the research actually doesn't focus on veterans. So there's been a lot of research on athletes, so understanding what has happened with football players. But veterans' experiences, and how they acquire their traumatic brain injuries, is not on the football field.

And so what are the differences for veterans? Are their injuries different? What are the contexts of their injuries, particularly brain injuries that were acquired during combat? The context of the injury? So what else is happening at the time? Was it from a blast injury? Was there a traumatic event associated with the injury itself? And all of that makes treatment of military-related TBI more complicated.

And so it's, some of our findings are that these veterans with traumatic brain injury from military service, many of them are suffering greatly and have long-term needs. There is a debate among the clinical researchers about what exactly to expect in the more far-off future, whether this is going to be a tsunami of dementia cases, people dealing with dementia, or not. And there is a real divide in the research community about this and with no real answer. So in some ways, we will wait and see, but there is research ongoing to uncover this.

Quil Lawrence

So it's unknown and unprecedented, I guess? People don't know what comes 10, 20 years after a brain injury like that?

Carrie M. Farmer

Yeah. So a lot of the research looks at how people are doing a year after their injury, or two years after their injury. And so not following people who have a traumatic brain injury for a long term and really seeing, what is the trajectory over the long term? And the other thing is that it's very variable. So the injury itself is classified as mild, moderate, or severe at the time of the injury, but that doesn't necessarily translate into what the trajectory of recovery is. Somebody with a mild traumatic brain injury could have a long, difficult recovery. And somebody, I mean, somebody with a moderate or severe injury is most likely going to have long-term problems. But among those with mild traumatic brain injury, it really depends on how many other traumatic brain injuries had they sustained, with the more injuries that occurred really leading to worse outcomes. Long-term struggles.

Quil Lawrence

Yeah. And one of the reasons that we picked Matt Lammers in the podcast I did was the extent of his injuries, which he had somehow miraculously survived. And to the point where he was, he overheard someone in the Baghdad Combat Surgical Hospital saying, you know, "You all should have some respect and stop talking, because Sergeant Lammers doesn't have long to live," and he piped up and said, "Actually, sir, I'd like to keep on."

But I was curious about what it looks like 10, 20, 30 years later, that surviving something that was previously unsurvivable. I mean, and you talk about all the things that could have been happening with a TBI at the same time.

Carrie M. Farmer

Well, I think it depends. Some veterans will recover perfectly well, have no ongoing problems. And then there does seem to be a higher risk of cognitive problems and psychological problems. Functional problems as well. But it's not—it's really, every case is individual, and the symptoms are different. So some people experience visual problems, and some people experience balance problems. And it really depends on what part of the brain is injured as well.

Quil Lawrence

I had read one study—and you talk about what, you know, what's happening when this blast happens and trying to ask the question of whether the blast that happens at the same time, that causes the TBI, also is obviously putting all these particles in the air. I think we've all breathed them downrange. Many people here in the audience will know the smell that I'm talking about.

And it sort of links to another huge issue, which we would be remiss in not talking about, which is toxic exposures, which I think have been labeled as this generation's Agent Orange. But the question really is with that, all the heavy history that comes with the words Agent Orange, whether this is going to be Agent Orange? Because it felt that way at the beginning, where someone was getting disbelieved and maybe gaslit by the medical community, or even the VA, or whoever saying, "no, you're not suffering from this," to now being recognized. I mean, will this— where are we going on toxic exposure? Are we going to do it right this time?

Jeremy Butler

I think there's a great opportunity to, and I also am a little bit nervous that we're going to miss this opportunity. And I'd be remiss to not point out Tom Porter, who leads our advocacy efforts here in D.C., who can talk your ear off long-term about this. I'll try and make it a little bit briefer, but the short answer is, I think it already is the Agent Orange of our generation because really, we're talking decades that this has been going on. This isn't something new. So if you compare it to Agent Orange, you know, it was decades until that was started to be addressed.

But where things stand right now is that there's two bills. There's a bill in the House, and there's a bill in the Senate, each that would profoundly change the way VA recognizes and treats veterans that were exposed, not just to burn pits, but other toxic exposures. You know, we started using burn pits because that was the more evocative thing. But what we realize that there's a lot more than just burn pits that are making veterans sick and die. But there's a bill in both the House and the Senate that has incredible amount of support. The basic differences between each is how many illnesses would result in presumptive cases. And so if you come down with this, and you served in this country, boom, you're covered. VA will take care of you.

Both of these bills have tremendous support. I think if we don't get a vote on them this year, we're going to be in real trouble that they're not going to get passed. Congress, this session of Congress has two years, so it's got next year. The problem being that when you get into an election year, very little gets done. Neither side wants to give the other a win. And so I would encourage everyone, you know, not to plug ourselves, but you can go to IAVA.org and our Take Action pages. I think we really need to push Congress, and we've gotten some promises that there'll be at least a vote on the House bill this year. But I think if we don't get a vote on one and preferably both of these bills and get them to the president, we're going to find ourselves in a situation where, a year from now, we're saying we're going to have to be starting all over from scratch. Which is a real shame, because I think this is a huge opportunity.

Quil Lawrence

I think tonight we're supposed to be plugging RAND. So I should let you two—

Jeremy Butler

I know, I'm sorry. It was on my notes card.

Quil Lawrence

I'm not supposed to plug any of them. I don't plug any of these people.

Rajeev Ramchand

I mean, I would just say, you know, this taps into this issue. I mean, from a research perspective, there's a lack of specificity. The challenge we have is the lack of specificity in the outcome and then the exposure. How do we measure exposure to these agents? And what specific outcomes does that exposure lead to? But I do think that, you know, one of the benefits of the institute, and this is to Michael's point earlier, that RAND is—this center is adjacent to a bunch of other centers. Centers on environmental health, centers on understanding global security. So I think that we can leverage those partnerships and learn from those centers. How are they measure—I mean, it's not just the veteran community that's being exposed to environmental toxins and that are getting sick from it. It's the world, really. And so if we leverage those resources, learn how they're doing it, how they're applying it, in whatever context they're applying it. Can we take those methods and adapt them to study, and to get better granular data among the veteran population? And that's foundational to to RAND. I think that's what makes RAND what it is, is its ability to not be so siloed, and to leverage kind of the expertise across domains and draw those parallels.

Carrie M. Farmer

Yeah, I think that's right. We have, I mean, one of the benefits of RAND is that, you know, I'm a health policy researcher, Rajeev is an epidemiologist, but we're just two people. There are almost a thousand PhD researchers at RAND that have expertise across all topics. And so we're able to bring to bear that expertise, which is really useful for something like toxic exposure where we need our defense researchers to understand, you know, deployment patterns. Where were people? What information can we use from Department of Defense to really understand where exposures might have happened? To our environmental researchers, who understand the impacts of various chemicals on health and well-being, and be able to bring that to bear on a project.

Quil Lawrence

Alright. Well, I know we have some really fascinating other people to hear from, so. Thank you all for listening—

Rajeev Ramchand

Thanks, Quil.

Voiceover

Times have changed since the creation of NATO, and NASA, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank. From colleges and courts to the military and the media, are the many institutions we've relied on to keep us educated, safe and informed still meeting our needs today? Technology has transformed our lives and changed the way we communicate. Speed and ease of transaction guide our high-tech world. But have they made us less safe? The networks that make it possible for you to connect with your family and friends around the world also connect terrorist groups and their followers. You can have groceries delivered with the push of a button, but there are also websites that trade in weapons and humans. Who is responsible when your self-driving car crashes? What happens when an algorithm denies you access to health care or a loan to start a business? From cyberspace to outer space, now is the time to rethink the roles and responsibilities of our institutions and our place in the world. Imagine a tomorrow where sound policy drives stability, prosperity, health, and well-being. Can you imagine a more secure tomorrow? We can. Tomorrow demands today.

Jeremy Butler

Jeremy Butler

Chief Executive Officer

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Quil Lawrence

Quil Lawrence

Veterans Correspondent

NPR

Carrie M. Farmer

Carrie M. Farmer

Codirector, RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute; Director, Health Care Quality Measurement and Improvement Program; Senior Policy Researcher

RAND Corporation

Rajeev Ramchand

Rajeev Ramchand

Codirector, RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute; Senior Behavioral Scientist

RAND Corporation

Learn More