Research Committee Notes Problem Solving Courts February 6, 2006 Concord District Court Library 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. Present: Nina Gardner, Chair (note taker) Rep. Harriett Cady Rep. Gilman Shattuck John Tobin Rod Tenney (excused) Special appreciation was extended to Ms. Pam Neville, Regional Court Administrator, District Courts, who assisted in bringing together various stakeholders in New Hampshire’s own current “Problem Solving Courts.” We began our session learning more about the evolution and history behind the development of Cheshire County Mental Health Court. It was modeled upon successful programs in Brower County Florida and Seattle’s Mental Health Courts. It is a team approach to dealing with individuals who find themselves in the court system. The purpose of the team is to identify barriers and impediments to success. In preparing for the project, it was known that 16% of the population at Cheshire County Jail has some sort of mental health issues. There are limited resources at the jail to deal with these individuals and limited housing opportunities when individuals attempt to return back into the community after serving their time. The court uses a multi-disciplinary approach to looking at each of these cases. The goal in these cases is to enable individuals to have independence in their living as long as there is a means to make certain that they are taking their medications. The existing regional mental health system is not sufficient. Looking at the Cheshire example the question arose; does such an effort require legislative approval? The current project did get that approval. Could the courts work collaboratively with the mental health community without it, perhaps? However, the general consensus was that it is difficult to get access to resources unless there is a law mandating such services. It would be interesting to get more information from Cheshire County regarding access to grants to help fund the project or various aspects of February 6, 2006 Page Two treatment options. Looking through their reports we could get a better sense of whether there had been a reduction in recidivism. We should also find out more about the future of this effort. We need to understand how it came to be- that is, was there a need, which the county was willing to support. Was this also based upon an understanding that by getting help to these people, there would be a reduction in the costs of county corrections? Rod Tenney expressed a willingness to pursue further contact and information gathering on behalf of the Committee regarding the Cheshire County Mental Health Court. The group next met with John McDermitt a Nashua Police Prosecutor who has had extensive experience working with youth in the court system and is currently prosecuting cases in drug court in Nashua. By way of background, Mr. McDermitt explained that New Hampshire is one of ten national sights which have received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in support of drug court models. The current operational sights in NH are; Plymouth, Concord, Laconia, Nashua and soon to be added will be Claremont and Derry. In response to the question, what area in NH is most significant in terms of drug cases, Mr. McDermitt mentioned the I-93 corridor from Salem to Manchester and north along with areas in Sullivan County where there is significant trade in heroin. He mentioned that the new drug of choice has become crack cocaine and it is streaming up that 93 corridor. So what is drug court all about? It is a program of voluntary participation. Prior to 1999 there was no drug court program, then with the aid of a $30,000 exploratory grant traveling and training began here. The juvenile delinquency statute allows s for the use of good treatment options. In collaboration with the division of Juvenile Justice Services the grant was allowed for and received. Currently there is a $1 million grant running over 5 years. The project is now in year four. The grant enables training and evaluation. Is there an impediment to tacking such a model and moving it into an adult population/ the answer is No. The successful academy program in Sullivan County was a precursor to such a model as is the superior court drug program in Strafford County. The common feature in all of these efforts is that these cases require a significant amount of judge/court monitoring. February 6, 2006 Page Three How serious is this problem of drug usage? It is large and getting larger according to information gathered by “New Futures.” There is a rising need and no facilities for teens. Currently there are only 12 residential drug treatment beds available in the state. So, another approach is necessary. But these drug court cases require an extensive commitment of time of the part of the court. Grant money can be used to support services but cannot be used to pay salaries. With regard to community resources there is a plan being developed by “New Future” for five sites to provide services for teens and young children involved with drugs. How does the drug court model work? The role of law enforcement is actually less than in a normal trial based model. The role actually changes as it is integrated into the family relationships which underlie the drug court model. The parties must sign a waiver of confidentiality. Parental participation if a must, there is also behaviors modeling and parent training. Up front there is a LYADAC (trained alcohol /drug councilor) evaluation done up front to determine the scope of the drug involvement. The role of “New Futures” is to quote “reclaim” futures of kids by providing community resources in place based upon models that make positive differences.” The program can make use of good mentors for kids and for their parents. There is lots of complexity to these cases as there is most often a co-occurring relationship between the use of drugs and mental health issues. Structuring the anticipated outcomes vary greatly from child to child based upon the unique features of their individual case. It has become clear from the surveys of youth compiled that the need to reach younger children with the drug usage now beginning as early as 12, 13 and 14. The drug court model is time and labor intensive and does not permit every case to be handled this way. The kid’s home needs to be made safe, and the kid must understand the immediacy of the impending consequences. Lack of commitment will lead to the usage court proceedings. The key seems to be the weekly meetings with the judge, JPPO, and other support staff. There is also very frequent drug testing. Currently 14% of the delinquency and CHINS cases in our system involve children with drug/alcohol related problems. The maximum caseload of drug court cases as been limited to 15-18 at anyone location due to the intensity of the supervision required by the JPPO and the courts.