John Hamilton Interview

John Hamilton

CEO, Recovery Network of Programs

Bridgeport, Conn. area

         John Hamilton, past President of NEADCP is most certainly not resting on his career laurels.

         Having logged 34 years in the field of addiction treatment and prevention, he says now, “I always felt I could do a better job.” That determination to improve on what he had already accomplished explains how he came to be involved in drug courts.

         Hamilton had been exposed to several different programs treating and preventing addiction, but only when he was introduced to the drug court model did he realize that he had found “the perfect collaboration of public health and public safety” and, he adds, “the perfect model of sanctions and incentives.” He quickly proceeded to seek a drug court grant for Bridgeport, Conn., where his work on behalf of drug addicts continues.

         That work has not been without its challenges. In the Connecticut judiciary, “only a handful of visionary judges [initially] saw the value” of drug courts, Hamilton says. Then, in 2000, it was only through the intervention of the drug courts’ monitor (Maureen Derbacher, also an NEADCP board member) that a docket for those courts was created and funding for them allocated in the state budget.

         Hamilton and other advocates eventually succeeded in inserting a line item in the budget that enabled them to begin building a drug court system, as he says, “from the ground up.” The cities of New Haven and Willimantic are now home to two courts, each offering inpatient treatment and diversion options in outpatient facilities.

         Asked about the medication-assisted treatment that the courts are required to provide if they are receiving federal funding, Hamilton says he is a strong supporter. He notes that research has shown that if an opiate addict fails to get that treatment, he or she has only a 9 percent chance at a sustained recovery.

         Undeterred by the challenges he has faced over three-plus decades, Hamilton remains determined to influence drug-court policy with a campaign that he pledges will recognize “who drug courts work for and who they don’t, under what conditions they work well for high-risk/high-need individuals and when they don’t, and what are the best options for making them work well.”

Interview with Chief Judge LaFazia

Jeanne LaFazia

Chief Judge

Rhode Island District Court

         You could say Judge Jeanne LaFazia is a veteran at establishing specialty courts – notably, veterans’ courts – in her home state of Rhode Island and beyond, and she has achieved that distinction with drug courts as her model.

         Chief Judge of the Ocean State’s District Court system since 2010, LaFazia is the daughter of parents who both served in World War II and, incidentally, met each other during their service in the military.

         “I grew up with a quiet but strong sense of our duty to give back, which was instilled in me by both parents,” LaFazia says of her commitment to public service in general and veterans courts in particular.

         She came by her interest in veterans’ courts when she was still an Associate Judge. As she recalled in a recent interview, “I saw [veterans] coming through the system unrecognized,” many of them having done multiple tours of duty and returning home with concomitant problems.”

         After being named Chief Judge in 2010, one of her first priorities was to create a veterans’ court in Rhode Island to address this special population. 

         LaFazia noted that there are similarities in the operation of Veteran Treatment Courts and Drug Courts.  “They share a common goal of breaking cycles of substance abuse and criminal behavior, while helping to ensure public safety”.  The Veterans Court population, however, is unique in many ways and the service background of these men and women creates a different dynamic from other treatment courts.  These military defendants are highly motivated.  They put on the uniform to serve their country and they want to again be contributing members of their communities”.  Chief LaFazia says, “We have a moral obligation to recognize these men and women and give them the tools to again become contributing members of society.”

Currently, 48 of the 50 states have established or are in the process of establishing veterans’ courts, according to LaFazia, with established drug courts setting the example. The latter, she noted, have proven their worth, with considerable research and data demonstrating that success.  I suspect Veterans Courts, if done properly, will be even more successful.

For all that she has accomplished with Veterans Courts, LaFazia acknowledges much work remains. Asked what Rhode Island needs to do to make specialty courts more effective, she is quick with a reply: “We always need support and buy-in from our legislators, and we need to educate the public. They have to understand what the [specialty court] program really is.”  It is no way a free “pass”, but is in fact a program that combines rigorous treatment and personal accountability.

Hartwell Dowling

Hartwell Dowling

Coordinator of Specialty Dockets and Grants

State of Maine Judicial Branch

         In his first job just out of Boston University with a master’s degree in social work, Hartwell Dowling, while doing both juveniles and adults clinical work in  two Maine state prisons, discovered very quickly that there was a very high rate of substance abuse.

          “People there [in prison] had drug abuse problems, and there wasn’t much help there for them,” Dowling remembers. In a subsequent position, in a Maine family court, he learned about the drug court model, “and it resonated with me. The outcomes were so much superior to what I saw in the business-as-usual setting.”

          Even with those encouraging results, Dowling, who now holds the title of coordinator of Specialty Dockets and Grants soon learned that funding for drug courts would be hard to come by in Maine where resources for the judicial system have been lacking.

          Another challenge has been the labor-intensive quality of drug cases, Dowling reports, noting that judges do not always have the time needed to devote to those cases. Compounding the problem is the small number of judges, relative to a geographical area as large as Maine’s.

          And as in other rural states in New England, a lack of adequate transportation has posed a challenge. “It’s hard to get people to [drug] court and to treatment,” he says.

          Nonetheless, the challenges are being met, with the result that Maine’s drug courts are “very well researched” and the outcomes “demonstrably good,” Dowling says. The federal mandate for medication-assisted treatment has also been of great assistance, he adds, with “the federal government putting its money where its mouth is.”

          More recently, the openness with which opioid addiction is being discussed – by public officials and private citizens – is, as Dowling says, “raising the profile of the issue and putting resources into the reduction of supply and demand.”

         

          Still, much work remains for leaders in the field of drug courts, including improving the infrastructure around drug courts by way of enabling legislation. “That would institutionalize drug courts,” Dowling says, “rather than have them be boutique programs off in the margins.” And the continued involvement of the drug court judges will be a boon. “Some of the judges where we have drug courts have been very dynamic in the community,” says Dowling.

          So has Dowling, judging from his accomplishments to date.

Update:

Hartwell Dowling left his job last month for another job in a drug court system in the southwest. This blog interview is a tribute to Hartwell (written a few months before he left). The NEADCP Board will miss him as will his other colleagues in New England.

Stephanie A. Clark, Esq.,

Stephanie A. Clark, Esq.,

Coordinator Windsor County DUI Treatment Docket

          As an attorney with experience as a court magistrate, Stephanie Clark is no stranger to the ways of local judiciaries, including the Windsor County Superior Court in White River Junction, Vt., where she is serving as coordinator of the county’s DUI Treatment Docket.

          Clark found her way to that destination, partly by the pull of New England where she attended law school (in Springfield, Mass.) but more because of the evidence demonstrating the value of stand-alone courts serving people with addictions.

          “The more I learn and am exposed to all the models,” such as the stand-alone DUI unit she  coordinates in Vermont, “the more I see the increased public safety while costs are being reduced and lives are being saved ,” Clark says. “I’m so impressed with the work being done.”

          Still, Clark believes much work remains, in Vermont and elsewhere in the region, and she singles out several areas where attention must be paid:

·       Education – “All the stakeholders really need to understand the differences in the [stand-alone] models of problem solving courts and how they operate,” she says.

·       Resources – The lack of financial and other forms of public support is “the biggest challenge” for drug court professionals, especially in states where fiscal deficits loom large.

·       Public perception – The stigma of addiction persists, and it places “so much pressure” on those struggling with addictions, she says, noting that establishment of a community advisory committee is in the works for the DUI docket “to grow a broader support system for people in recovery in our community.”

As for the requirement that drug courts receiving federal funds must comply with Medication Assisted Treatment, Clark reports that MAT is available and being used in Vermont when it is believed appropriate for use by individual drug court clients. “It’s an important piece in their stability and recovery,” she says. But, she adds, there are not enough providers of the treatment and “the wait lists are so long.”

Even with the challenges facing drug courts, Clark remains optimistic that drug court professionals working in all manner of problem solving courts will be able to sustain them, expand them, and bring them into in line with national standards – all in keeping with the motto for NEADCP’s upcoming conference: “Where Justice and Treatment Meet: The New Standard for  Excellence.”  

2nd NEADCP Board Interview: Chief Justice Tina Nadeau

Tina Nadeau

Chief Justice

New Hampshire Superior Court

         When Tina Nadeau was first appointed to the New Hampshire bench in 2004, she wasted no time launching a conversation about the need for drug courts at the county level. Defendants, she observed, had no access to treatment either while they were in prison or on probation.

         Assigned then to the drug court in Rockingham County, Nadeau, as she remembers it, “got people [from the county] together, got two weeks of training in Oklahoma, got an implementation grant, and we were up and running” with a drug court.

         In the four years since she was named chief justice of the Superior Court, the number of county-based drug courts has increased from two to six.

        

         Still, Nadeau is not resting on any laurels. Citing the need for yet more treatment and other services for drug abusers, she is hoping there will be a commitment at the state level to support drug courts. In a rural state like New Hampshire, she faces considerable challenges, “the single biggest” being the lack of transportation for those needing services, especially in the north country, she says.

         “Not being able to get them where they need to be is a huge roadblock,” she acknowledges, but not an insurmountable one. Donations of old cars, vans, even bicycles and the consolidation of probation, treatment and a county drug court all in one location would help greatly, she notes.

         A strong supporter of medication-assisted treatment, Nadeau finds that the more she sees of the impact of opioid addiction, the more she sees the need for MAT. “We don’t tell diabetics to try harder without insulin,” she says, adding, “It’s basically medical malpractice if we don’t provide that assistance.”

         Overall, Nadeau seems optimistic about the future for drug courts. Media attention to the problem of addiction and the dissemination of evidence-based information about the effectiveness of drug courts are contributing to that feeling of optimism. And New Hampshire’s distinction as the site of the first statewide presidential primary also gives her cause for hope.

         The Granite State, she says, “is in a great position to put this issue front and center, to have an effect on the national conversation … to put drug courts in front of prospective presidential candidates.”