ASE
a sas
Ee
ee
State of New Hampshire
Adult Drug Court Development and Implementation
Table of Contents
INODUCHION rsseestscsestssintntietotisnsnnniinsienahensiinnitusnaniusauiieee 3
National Background .....cscsssesnenennisisnsnnsnstnnusnuanaanaupiiie 4
History of Drug Courts If NH... 5
10 Key COmPONE Nt... .rscsseeeesnssnststsstanietstiunenssianianianiitiiee 8
National Best Practice Standards .......ccssssassnssnenssnsnrnnannienvveusute 9
COTIICERION aoe sects stsstnetsttnnintrstnisstinnisniensvississtiiaianiniunisiieec 11
introduction
This document will serve as an outline for the development, implementation and
on-going improvement for Superior Court adult drug courts in the State of New
Hampshire.
In response to the critical and continued persistence of substance abuse in this
state, the Judicial Branch proposes a nationally proven strategy for consideration. To be
successful at reducing substance abuse, there must be a coordinated approach that
targets the specific needs of individuals who suffer from substance abuse. Drug courts
are one part of a continuum of services that can be provided to the addicted individual
who has had regular contact with the criminal justice system. The services offered to
drug court participants are direct and intensive and will not be required for the entire
population of substance abusers. After decades of research, however, the success of
drug courts has shown that offender population can recover from their addiction and
become productive members of society. In addition, the use of drug courts reduces
recidivism at greater rates than traditional corrections responses.
The justice involved offender who suffers from addiction is responsible for a large
percentage of overall criminal activity, victimization, theft and fraud that contributes to
the volume of our corrections population. These individuals place a sizeable drain on
society in many ways. In addition, their families are often the recipients of public
assistance due to the loss of income and support from an incarcerated family member.
By restoring the individual and the family to a productive life, the overall community
benefits. The cycle of addiction can be broken for the next generation as well. Studies
have shown that incarceration is not successful at reducing the cycle of addiction and
crime, and that abstinence alone does not treat addiction. The offender’s disease is still
present when they are released into the community which leads to continued criminal
activity, even though they may not have been using while incarcerated.
The nationally recognized drug court model has been the subject of research and
intense examination for more than 20 years. Those studies demonstrate that by
implementing a specific regime of accountability and treatment, individuals can recover.
Research has also shown, however, that to be successful drug courts must follow very
specific criteria that have been tested and proven to work. Thus, fidelity to the mode!
becomes critically important in the implementation phase as well as the on-going
operations. Success can be replicated by adhering to these evidence based practices
which must be continually examined and reinforced.
Go
National Background
The first drug court began in 1989 in Dade County Florida. A group of justice
professionals became frustrated when they saw the same offenders recycle through the
jails and prisons, observing that incarceration did not reduce addiction or the likelihood
of reoffending. When the offenders were released, they continued their criminal activity
and were still addicted to drugs. As early as 1962, the US Supreme Court in Robinson
v California, found narcotics addiction to be an illness. Treatment, rather than
punishment, was starting to become a preferred method of addressing the addicted
offender population. Judges across the country began to investigate alternative
sentences for individuals that were clearly addicted. Though well-intended, there was no
consistency across drug court programs and each judge had his/her own views of what
worked best. In 1994, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals was formed
and a more cohesive, organized approach began to emerge. This more coordinated
approach has produced national standards, best practices and scientific research which
demonstrate the success of drug courts.
Today there are well over 3,000 drug courts throughout the country, and they
exist in every state. Multiple states have seen Savings on many levels by implementing
drug courts and other treatment based options. For example, in 2007, Texas faced a
massive projected growth in prison population. State legislators invested more than
$241 million in Drug Courts and other Strategies to reduce recidivism. As a result,
instead of spending an estimated $2 billion in new prison spending, Texas closed
several prisons, experienced a 39 percent reduction in parole revocations, and drove
the statewide crime rate down to levels not seen since the 1960s.
There have been multiple studies conducted using strict, scientific principles to
evaluate the effectiveness of drug courts. The US Government Accounting Office,
National Institute of Justice, National Center for State Courts, Center for Court
Innovation and Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center all have performed evaluations of
drug courts. In 2011, a multisite adult drug court evaluation compared the outcomes of
23 drug courts across the country. Results showed that drug court participants were
significantly less likely to relapse than a control group, have significantly less family
conflict and significantly reduced their criminal activity. These results are consistent over
time. As long as a drug court stays faithful to the model, successful outcomes will follow.
History of Drug Courts in NH
Strafford County implemented the first drug court in 2004. It began as a pilot
project for 14 months. The county applied for and received a Bureau of Justice
Assistance Grant that allowed for the program’s continuation for 3 years. At the end of
the grant period, having seen the success and savings, the county funded the entire
program. The county's drug court program is now fully funded by the State and has
been certified as operating according to National Standards. Strafford County also
implements a wide continuum of care which greatly enhances outcomes. The House of
Corrections operates a therapeutic community within its facility; there is sober housing
available as well as an in-patient, long term treatment facility. These kinds of programs
contribute to the overall success of the drug court.
Grafton County began its drug court in 2007 with county funding; the county
continues to fully fund the program. Grafton’s operations have community support to
include: an active community board which contributes financial Support to the program
as well as educational, vocational and social support. The Grafton County drug court
team is working with the statewide coordinator to become compliant with National
Standards, and to apply for state funding. A non-profit organization was formed called
“Friends of Grafton County Drug Court” which engages members of the community in
enhancing the services available to the participants. That organization has now been
converted to a statewide non-profit organization, “Friends of New Hampshire Drug
Courts” which provides community support to all drug courts across the state.
In 2011, Rockingham County accepted its first drug court participant after having
received a 3 year implementation grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. In 2015,
the county agreed to fully fund the program. The Rockingham County Drug Court
Program is now funded by the State. Cheshire County followed in 2013 having received
an implementation grant from BJA anda sizeable grant from the Substance Abuse
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These grants will expire in 2017,
making the program eligible for state funding. In 2014, Hillsborough County South
received a 3 year BJA implementation grant, as well as a SAMHSA grant in September
of 2015. The grants will expire in 2017 and Hillsborough South will be eligible for state
funding.
After the legislature passed SB 464, which provided state funding for drug courts,
Hillsborough North opened a drug court with state funding. The program is new, and
began taking participants in November, 2016.
While adult drug courts across the country are generally associated with felony
level courts, there are some exceptions. In January of 2013 a recovery court was
formed by the Laconia Circuit Court under the direction of the presiding judge. This
program has no funding and only takes a minimum number of participants. The program
team, however, attempts to follow the best practices of the drug court mode! despite the
limitations of funding. Once the presiding justice retires in July, 2017, the program will
be moved to the Superior Court and the statewide coordinator will work with the team to
ensure a robust program develops.
In order to maintain a consistent, effective and efficient system of drug courts
throughout the state, a more unified approach must be taken to ensure that all programs
are adhering to the national standards and following evidence based practices. Many
States across the country have such a model that includes staff to support drug courts.
The Governor's Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Treatment
and Recovery developed a 5 year plan in 2012 to address issues of substance abuse.
The Commission identified two core goals for the next five years: (1) to reduce the
percentage of New Hampshire residents misusing alcohol and other drugs and (2) to
increase the percentage of individuals with substance use disorders receiving treatment
and recovery support services. Drug courts support both of these goals.
Although not fully addressed in this report, New Hope Probation is another
strategy that successfully manages in the community offenders who are at risk of
reoffending but who have less significant drug abuse challenges than the drug court
participant. New Hope is designed to provide intensive supervision and short, swift,
immediate sanctions for violations of probation as a way to change offender behavior.
This strategy is targeted at offenders who may be able to stop using drugs and/or
alcohol without the intensive services of drug court, and will respond to immediate
sanctions for every violation of probation.
Currently, offenders on probation report twice monthly and are drug tested ona
predictable schedule. As a result, they are able to use drugs around the scheduled
drug test. In addition, offenders are not necessarily arrested for every violation and
instead are given “chances” to change their behavior. Finally, when an offender does
receive a violation, a hearing is not scheduled for 45 ~ 60 days after the violation
occurs. The offender may be held in jail pending a violation hearing, or the offender
may be in the community continuing to reoffend. New Hope completely changes the
current probation model.
In New Hope, the offender is intensely supervised, and is subject to random drug
tests at least twice weekly. In addition, the offender is arrested for every violation,
brought to court within two days, and receives a short, swift sanction in jail. This
program has been in place in Hawaii for many years and has proven successful at
reducing recidivism more successfully than traditional probation. Currently,
Hillsborough North is operating New Hope probation under a federal grant that will
analyze outcomes and provide information on recidivism rates. Several other counties
operate smaller versions of New Hope. While drug courts and New Hope are targeted
at different types of offenders depending on an assessment of the offender’s risk and
need, each are proven strategies to more effectively target scarce resources and
reduce crime.
Drug Court Model
Drug courts are a judicially supervised, multi-disciplinary approach that seeks to
identify appropriate participants through structured assessment, who would otherwise
be sentenced to jail or prison, and place them in treatment. The goals of drug court
include a reduction in recidivism, enhanced community safety, providing treatment for
addicted individuals who would be sentenced to jail or prison, restoring families,
reducing substance abuse within the community and saving tax payer dollars. These
goals are met through a unique, non-adversarial method that attempts to meet the
needs of each individual while still holding them accountable for their behavior.
Drug court teams in each county, including a judge, prosecutor, defense
attorney, treatment staff, law enforcement, case manager and coordinator, meet
regularly to discuss the progress of each participant in the program. Using a system of
graduated rewards and sanctions, participants move through the program and advance
to phases that will eventually end with a graduation or successful completion of the
program. Participants must agree to be randomly drug tested at least 2 times a week,
attend weekly treatment sessions that meet three hours per day, three times per week,
report to probation or supervision units regularly, attend self-help groups, attend court
hearings at least once every other week, and other requirements that will be identified to
meet their specific needs. As participants progress through the program, reporting
requirements are reduced. Team meetings involve open, candid discussions about each
individual’s success or failures which are then reviewed in open court with the
participant present. Behavior is addressed directly and swiftly and rewards or sanctions
are delivered in the appropriate situations.
Long term recovery may be difficult for those who are deeply addicted. However,
with appropriate coaching, strategies and support, recovery is a reality for many. This
process is critical and is incorporated into the program from the beginning.
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) created the 10
Key Components of Adult Drug Courts as well as recently published national best
practice standards to ensure consistency among programs and to maximize the
success of the model.
10 Key Components
Key Component #1
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system
case processing.
Key Component #2
Using a non-adversarial, collaborative approach, prosecution and defense counsel
promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.
Key Component #3
Eligible participants are identified early using an evidence-based assessment tool and
are promptly placed in the drug court program.
Key Component #4
Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment
and rehabilitation services.
Key Component #5
Abstinence is monitored by frequent and random alcohol and other drug testing.
Key Component #6
A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
Key Component #7
Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
Key Component #8
Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge
effectiveness.
Key Component #9
Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning,
implementation, and operations.
Key Component #10
Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based
organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.
National Best Practice Standards
|. Target population
Eligibility and exclusion criteria for the drug court are predicated on empirical evidence
indicating which types of offenders can be treated Safely and effectively in drug courts.
Candidates are evaluated for admission to the drug court using evidence-based
assessment tools and procedures. Specifically, offenders who are at high risk for
reoffending and have a high need for treatment because of a deep-rooted addiction are
the target group for drug court. This would include an offender with a record of offenses
related to the offender’s addiction (which includes other offenses in addition to
possession of drugs), and who has been addicted for many years without successful
treatment. First time offenders, and those who abuse, but are not addicted to drugs,
should not be placed in drug court. Instead, they should receive less intensive
treatment or regular probation.
Il. Historically disadvantaged groups
Citizens who have historically experienced sustained discrimination or reduced social
opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity,
physical or mental disability, religion, or socioeconomic status receive the same
opportunities as other citizens to participate and succeed in the drug court.
II]. Role and responsibilities of the Judge
The drug court judge stays abreast of current law and research on best practices in
drug courts, participates regularly in team meetings, interacts frequently and respectfully
with participants, and gives due consideration to the input of other team members.
IV. Incentives and sanctions and therapeutic adjustment
Consequences for participants’ behavior are predictable, fair, consistent, and
administered in accordance with evidence-based principles of effective behavior
modification.
V. Substance abuse treatment
Participants receive substance abuse treatment based on a standardized assessment
of their treatment needs. Substance abuse treatment is not provided to reward desired
behaviors, punish infractions, or serve other nonclinical indicated goals. Treatment
providers are trained and supervised to deliver a continuum of evidence-based
interventions that are documented in treatment manuals.
VI. Complementary treatment and other services
Participants receive complementary treatment and social services for conditions that co-
occur with substance abuse and are likely to interfere with their compliance in drug
court, increase criminal recidivism, or diminish treatment gains.
Vil. Drug and alcohol testing
Drug and alcohol testing provides an accurate, timely, and comprehensive assessment
of unauthorized substance use throughout participants’ enrollment in the drug court.
VIII. Multidisciplinary Team
A dedicated multidisciplinary team of professionals manages the day-to-day operations
of the drug court, including reviewing participant progress during pre-court staff
meetings and status hearings, contributing observations and recommendations within
team members’ respective areas of expertise, and delivering or overseeing the delivery
of legal, treatment and supervision services.
IX. Census and caseloads
The drug court serves as many eligible individuals as practicable while maintaining
continuous fidelity to best practice standards.
X. Monitoring and evaluation
The drug court routinely monitors its adherence to best practice standards and employs
scientifically valid and reliable procedures to evaluate its effectiveness.
10
