Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears bill to expand mental‑health courts across New Hampshire
Summary
Lawmakers and advocates told the Judiciary Committee HB 10 67 would formalize and fund mental‑health courts statewide, arguing the courts reduce incarceration and save county dollars; community providers raised concerns about new data collection and unfunded administrative costs.
CONCORD, N.H. — Lawmakers heard hours of testimony Thursday on a bill to expand and standardize mental‑health courts across the state.
Representative Mark Pearson, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the House Judiciary Committee HB 10 67 would create a framework for local courts to identify people with serious mental illness and offer court‑supervised treatment and services as alternatives to incarceration. ‘‘Mental health court does not excuse proven crime. It does give people a way forward,’’ Pearson said.
The legislation would set standards for grant applications and require participating courts to report outcomes. Pearson and co‑sponsor Representative Buzz Schur said the model is intended to be locally tailored: courts would use safety and clinical assessments to decide who is eligible and set individualized goals and services.
Advocates from NAMI New Hampshire and New Futures urged passage, citing national and local studies showing high rates of mental illness among jailed populations and potential cost savings from reduced incarceration and medication costs. Holly Stevens of NAMI testified that many people in jails and prisons live with mental illness and that diversion programs can change outcomes.
‘‘We have a great model in drug courts,’’ Jake Berry of New Futures told the committee, citing studies showing improved employment and lower recidivism among graduates and county savings in Manchester and Nashua.
But community behavioral‑health providers warned the committee the bill creates new reporting and administrative requirements that could duplicate existing electronic‑health‑record systems. Jennifer DeVoe of the Community Behavioral Health Association said requiring entry into a separate court reporting system would be an ‘‘unfunded mandate’’ and could divert staff time from patient care.
Lawmakers pressed sponsors on the fiscal note and whether the judiciary had been involved in drafting. Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel for the judicial branch, said the branch provided drafting support and clarified it was not taking a policy position for or against the bill. Committee members also asked about safeguards to keep violent offenders out of diversion programs; Schur said courts conduct safety assessments and typically exclude people whose cases involve violence.
The committee recessed without a formal vote on the bill and will consider next steps as the legislative process continues.
