Prepared by: Jaya Batra ‘ 13 Austin Goldberg ’ 13 Adam Nasser ‘ 15 Portia Schultz ‘ 15

1. The Adult Drug Courts of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine: An Analysis of Effectiveness and Barriers to Expansion Prepared by: Jaya Batra ‘13 Austin Goldberg ’13 Adam Nasser ‘15 Portia Schultz ‘15

2. The Drug Court Model The Drug Court Model: -BJA’s 10 Criteria -12 to 18 months -Random AOD testing -Upon completion: no prison, felony expunged -The drug court team Participants: -History of drug use -Nonviolent crime -Must plead guilty -Resident of the county -Must have transportation Recovery Savings Social Benefits

3. Drug Courts Nationally • 1970s and 80s: increased drug use  overcrowded prisons • 2,600+ in the U.S. • GAO Study on Recidivism • - Participants: 6-26% lower • Graduates: 12-58% lower • Annual incarceration cost: $20,000-$50,000 per inmate • Annual drug court cost: $9,000-$12,000 per participant

4. Criteria for Evaluation Recidivism Rates Cost-Effectiveness Impact Across Gender, Race, and Age Social Consequences

5. New Hampshire Has a drug court Developing a drug court

6. New Hampshire: Strafford • Operationalized in 2006 with DOJ start-up grant • Key Statistics • -54% graduation rate with 100 graduates • -10% have recidivated (new felony/misdemeanor) • -Corrections vs. Drug Courts: $84/day vs. $9/day • Implemented female-only treatment groups

7. New Hampshire: Grafton • Operationalized in 2007 with$20,000 DOJ start-up grant • Promising outcomes for 27 graduates: • -Recidivism: 9-10% vs.67% for traditionally incarcerated nationwide • -Per person costs of $2,500 vs. $9,000-$12,000 nationally

8. Vermont Has a drug court

9. Vermont • Chittenden • Recidivism: • -36-40% for participants • -14% for graduates • Cost: • -$85 per day cheaper than jail • Graduation: • -624 enrolled, 482 graduated (77%) • Rutland • Recidivism: • -60% for participants • -22% for graduates • Cost: • -$3 return on each dollar invested • Graduation: • -36% graduation rate

10. Maine • Currently, 5 counties with drug courts • -1,435 participants as of 2012 • Recidivism: 17% drug courts v. 33% traditionally incarcerated (ME study) • Cost: $3.30 saved for $1 spent • Additional Benefits • -60 drug free-births since 2001 • -$750,000-1,400,000 lifetime savings

11. Cost-Benefit Analysis * Model uses data from Rutland County to extrapolate savings for 50 and 100 new participants

12. Key Takeaways • Drug courts seem to be an effective alternative to incarceration in NH, ME, and VT • Reduced recidivism, except Penobscot County, ME • Long-term cost savings • Common demographic characteristics • Lower graduation rates for female and young participants • BJA grants serve as a primary source of funding

13. Keys to Success • Clear criteria for termination • Treatment activities as sanctions • Ongoing judicial interaction • Targeted programs for female clients • Expeditious referral time • Separate participants by level of risk

14. The Future of Drug Courts • Deterrent: Cost & Infrastructure • National Drug Court Institutecites cost as primary obstacle to drug court expansion • Large, upfront grant required to initiate program • Court cost usually absorbed by county budget

15. The Future of Drug Courts • Deterrent: Perception & Ideology • Are Drug Courts “soft” on crime? • Additional treatment vs. incarceration

16. Conclusion • Drug courts as an effective alternative to incarceration in NH, ME, and VT: • Reduce recidivism • Promote recovery • Create cost-savings • Analysis limited by small sample sizes • Policy Options: • Greater financial support • Tailor programs to key demographics • Adoption of best-practices