1 / 16

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

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. The Drug Court Model. The Drug Court Model : -BJA ’ s 10 Criteria

mirabelle-nicolas
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related