justice reinvestment in new hampshire jan 2010

8/8/2019 Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire Jan 2010

1/16

Justice Reinvestmentin New HampshireAnalyses & Policy Optionsto Reduce Spending on Corrections& Increase Public Safety

Background

IN JUNE 2009, GOVERNOR JOHN LYNCH,

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick

Jr., then-Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, Sen-

ate President Sylvia Larsen, and House Speaker

Terie Norelli requested intensive technical assis-tance from the Council of State Governments

Justice Center (Justice Center) to help develop a

statewide policy framework that reduces spend-

ing on corrections and reinvests in strategies that

increase public safety and reduce recidivism.

To guide the Justice Centers analyses of the

states criminal justice system and development

of policy options, the state established the Jus-

tice Reinvestment Work Group. Members of the

bipartisan, bicameral, and inter-branch groupinclude representatives of the House, Senate,

Governor, the State Supreme Court, and the

State Superior and District Courts. The work

group identied a cross-section of stakeholders

and data sources for the Justice Center to consult

in analyzing New Hampshires criminal justice

system.

The Justice Center convened roundtable dis-

cussions and organized interviews with supe-

rior and district court judges, county attorneys,

defense attorneys, behavioral health treatment

providers, police chiefs, sheriffs, victim advo-cates, and county superintendents. The Justice

Center also collected data from multiple sources

to inform the analyses outlined in this brief,

including the New Hampshire Department of

Corrections (DOC), Department of Safety, along

with other state agencies and individual county

corrections agencies.

This report summarizes the ndings of the

Justice Center and provides state policymakers

with a data-driven policy framework designed toachieve the three goals established by the work

group: reduce spending on corrections, rein-

vest in sanction and treatment programs, and

increase public safety by reducing recidivism.

January 2010

Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire


2/16


Although New Hampshires crime rate has been lowand stable for the past ten years, the prison popu-lation has increased 31 percent and spending on

corrections has nearly doubled over the same timeperiod.

Three key factors contribute to the growth of NewHampshires prison population:

Rising recidivism rates

The number of parolees who fail on supervision andare revoked to state prison has increased 50 percentsince 2000.

Few resources to sanction and to treatpeople under community supervision

Resources to provide substance use treatment forparolees and probationers and to sanction them inthe community are extremely scarce.

Inefciencies in parole processes

People are held in prison unnecessarily after theyhave served 100 percent of their minimum sentence,costing taxpayers an estimated $20 million a year.

I. Summary

New Hampshire is one of the safeststates in the country.

In 2008, the states property crime rate (2,092 per100,000) was the fourth lowest in the nation, andthe states violent crime rate (157 per 100,000) wasthe third lowest in the nation.

Crime rates over the past eight years have beenstable: property and violent crime rates in 2008were essentially the same as they were in 2000.

Despite a low and stable crime rate,the number of arrests has increased inrecent years.

In the states 28 largest cities/towns (which accountfor 52 percent of the states population) the num-ber of arrests reported increased four percent from2005 to 2008. Within that time period, arrests forviolent crimes increased 31 percent from 420to 550, arrests for property crimes increased sixpercent from 2,609 to 2,754, and arrests for drugcrimes decreased by four percent from 2,228 to2,137.

Police chiefs and sheriffs point toinsufcient substance use and mentalhealth treatment services as one factorcontributing to property and violentcrime.

In focus group discussions, police chiefs and sher-iffs noted that drug use drives a signicant per-centage of crime that is categorized as propertycrime in New Hampshire.

The absence of integrated mental health andsubstance use treatment services for people with

co-occurring mental health and drug/alcoholproblems create signicant challenges for policeofcers and other rst responders who encounterpeople who are in a mental health crisis and underthe inuence of drugs or alcohol.

II. Crime &Arrest Trends


3/16


III. Corrections Trends

New Hampshires prison populationincreased 31 percent and statespending on corrections has nearly

doubled between FY1999 and FY2009.

The number of people incarcerated in stateprison increased from 2,233 in FY1999 to 2,917 inFY2009.

State spending on corrections has increased from$52 million (or $67 million adjusted for ination)in FY1999 to $104 million in FY2009.

The number of people sentenced toprison for committing a crime (as

opposed to a prison admission for aparole or probation revocation) has notincreased signicantly since 2000.

Admissions to prison with new sentences increasedonly slightly from 518 in 2000 to 532 in 2009.

The four largest counties (Hillsborough, Rock-ingham, Merrimack, and Strafford) account foralmost 75 percent of the state population but only

65 percent of prison admissions. Only two counties, Belknap and Sullivan, send a

signicantly disproportionate number of peopleto prison each year. In 2009, Belknap Countyaccounted for ve percent of the states residentpopulation but eight percent of prison admissions.Sullivan County accounted for three percent of thestates resident population but 11 percent of prisonadmissions.

Nearly two-thirds of people sentenced

to prison for committing a crime wereconvicted of non-violent, property ordrug offenses.

In 2009, 64 percent of people admitted to prisonwith a new sentence were convicted of non-vio-lent, property, or drug offenses.

County Correctional Facilities

As the number of people held incounty correctional facilities hasgrown, the average daily cost of ofincarcerating someone in a local jailhas increased, too.

From 2000 to 2008, the number of

people held in county correctional

facilities increased 21 percent.

Average daily costs for county

correctional facilities has increased 50

percent from 2000 to 2009.

In 2009, 268 people on probationsupervision were reincarcerated in

local jail because their probation

was revoked; the cost to counties

of reincarcerating these probation

revocations, who spend an average of 8

months in local jail, was approximately

$5.7 million.

County Corrections AverageDaily Population

(Straord Minus Inmate Boarders)

County 31-DeC-00 31-DeC-08PerCentChange

Belknap 42 90 114%

Carroll 47 61 30%

Cheshire 78 95 23%

Coos 28 39 39%

Grafton 70 103 47%

Hillsborough 556 583 5%Merrimack 200 232 16%

Rockingham 265 332 25%

Strafford 141 164 16%

Sullivan 68 104 53%

TOTAL ADP 1495 1811 21%


4/16


In 2004, people convicted of property offensesaccounted for 15 percent of admissions. By 2009,people convicted of a property offense accounted

for 28 percent of the states prison admissions.

People revoked from parole supervisionare the largest and fastest growing category of admissions to prison.

The number of people revoked to prison for violat-ing the conditions of parole increased from 360 in2000 to 540 in 2009.

Parole revocations have increased from 35 to 43percent of all admissions to prison between 2000

and 2009.

On average, people admitted to prison for a parolerevocation spent an average of 10-11 monthsincarcerated before being released back to paroleor completing their sentence while incarcerated.

With state prison facilities overcrowded, programcapacity limited and those revoked from paroleoften serving different lengths of time incarcer-ated, most people returned to prison because theirparole was revoked do not participate in any pro-grams or services prior to their re-releasee.

Most people whose probationsupervision is revoked are incarceratedin county (as opposed to state)

correctional facilities.

Two-thirds of probation revocations serve an aver-age of eight months in a county facility, while theremaining one-third of probation revocations aresentenced to an average of 34 months in stateprison.

The number of people whose probation wasrevoked and were sent to prison increased onlyslightly from 152 in 2000 to 174 in 2009.

More than half of the states prisonadmissions are people whose probationor parole supervision was revoked.

In 2009, probation and parole revocations forcondition violations (where there wasnt a newsentence) together accounted for 57 percent of alladmissions to state prison.

Women Offenders in Prison

The number of women admitted to prison in New Hampshire has increased dramatically.

The number of women admitted to prison has increased 133 percent, from 86 in 2003 to 201 in

2009.

In 2000, women accounted for approximately 8-10 percent of all prison admissions. In FY2009,

women accounted for 16 percent of all prison admissions.

Half of the women admitted to prison in FY2009 had not committed a new crime; they were

incarcerated because they had violated their conditions of probation or parole supervision.

Recidivism rates for women released from prison have increased faster than the increasein recidivism rates experienced by men.

According to DOC recidivism studies, the three year reincarceration rate for women rose from 36

percent for those released in 2003 to 57 percent for those released in 2005. The recidivism rate for

men, however, increased from 40 to 50 percent over the same time period.


5/16


IV. Probation & Parole Supervision

The number of people on probation andparole has increased signicantly, whilethe total number of probation and

parole ofcers has not increased.

The number of people on probation supervisionhas increased 26 percent from FY2000 to 2009.

The number of people on parole has nearly doubled(93 percent increase) over the same time period.

Because the number of PPO staff has not increasedduring this time period, caseloads have increasedsignicantly.

The percentage of people on parolesupervision who are revoked andreturned to prison varies signicantlyfrom one county to the next.

In FY 2009, 23 percent of people on parole in CoosCounty were revoked to prison, while 88 percentof parolees in Sullivan County were revoked toprison.

The recidivism rate for people releasedfrom prison has increased.

According to recidivism studies produced by theDOC, the percent of people released from prisonwho were reincarcerated within three years (fora new crime or violating a condition of parole)increased from 40 percent for those released in2003 to 51 percent for those released in 2005.

By comparison, the national average recidivismrate is 40 percent, according to the latest researchfrom the Bureau of Justice Statistics (this averagedoes not include California data, which due to itssize in the sample increases the average to 50 per-cent).

Recidivism by Age

(2004 Cohort)

1719 60%

2025 51%

2629 42%

3039 43%

4049 41%

5059 29%

Source: 2003 and 2004 cohort data come from New Hampshire Department of Corrections. Joan Schwartz, Ph.D. Recidivismin New Hampshire: A Study of Offenders Returned to Prison within Three Years of Their Release, September 2009. 2005 Cohortdata are still preliminary and have not been published or nalized by the NH DOC.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Within 3 Years

2003 2004 2005

40%

44%

51%

New Hampshire Recidivism Rate:

Percent of People Reincarcerated Within 3 Years

Recidivism by

Offense Type

Violent 40.0%

Property 50.0%

Drug 37.0%

Public Order 48.0%


6/16


Parole Revocation Rates: Wide Variation by County

County

ParolePoPulation(9/25/2009)

Fy 2009 ParolerevoCations

to Prison(Prison Admissions Data)

revoCationsas PerCentoF Parole

PoPulation

Belknap 78 47 60%

Carroll 38 14 37%

Cheshire 68 29 43%

Coos 40 9 23%

Grafton 81 28 35%

Hillsborough 527 149 28%

Merrimack 274 64 23%

Rockingham 164 71 43%

Strafford 93 53 57%

Sullivan 84 74 88%

Other 373 2 1%

TOTAL 1,820 540 30%

Parole revocationsin FY 2009 will costNew Hampshireapproximately

$13.3 millionbased on a $90per day cost ofincarceration.

Unlike many other states, no statedollars are appropriated to the NHDOC for electronic monitoring, rapid

drug testing, substance use treatmentor intermediate sanction facilities tomonitor, treat, and sanction people onparole and probation.

Probationers and parolees in New Hampshire areplaced on electronic monitoring only if they areable to pay for the cost of the monitoring equip-ment.

When PPOs test probationers and parolees fordrug use, they must wait three to four weeks, on

average, for the results of such tests. Although the DOC provides limited drug educa-

tion programming in some correctional facilities,the DOC has no state resources to contract withcommunity-based substance use treatment provid-ers to ensure that high-risk, high-need probation-ers and parolees can access treatment in a timelymanner.

FY09 Parole Revocation Rate

Gender

Male 55%

Female 52%

Risk Level

Maximum 76%

Medium 62%

Minimum 37%Offense Type

Violent 55%

Sex Assault 52%

Non-Violent 54%

Drug 55%

Property 58%


7/16


People Revoked From Parole (2008)


8/16


V. Behavioral Health

Treatment and other support servicesfor addiction, mental health andco-occurring disorders are severely

underfunded.

According to the New Hampshire Bureau of Drugand Alcohol Services (BDAS), the states publicly-funded addiction treatment system has the capac-ity to provide treatment for approximately 6,000people, which is just 10 percent of the people inthe community who need it.

Mental health services funded by the New Hamp-shire Bureau of Behavioral Health (BBH) are lim-ited almost exclusively to individuals with serious

and persistent mental illnesses. Many people withmental health disorders require care that is essen-tially unfunded.

The majority of persons with mental illnesses andsubstance use disorders have co-occurring disor-ders (when at least one disorder of each type can beestablished independent of the other). Traditionalcare models are not effective with this populationand integrative approaches are required. BDASfunds only one program in the state that servesclients with co-occurring mental and substanceabuse disorders. Community mental health pro-viders have limited capacity to serve co-occurringconditions within the populations they serve.

The majority of individuals in jail andprison have either addiction or mentalhealth disorders (or both); these people

are a signicant driver of the statesincreasing revocation rates of peopleunder community supervision.

National data indicate the following: a) approxi-mately 70 percent of individuals admitted to prisonhave a diagnosable addiction disorder that requirestreatment; and b) 17 percent of people admitted toprison have a serious mental illness.

Based on a review of parole revocation hearingles covering a three-month period, 75 percent of

those revocations that were due to condition viola-tions involved parolees who used drugs or alcohol,and 41 percent failed to access and/or complete atreatment program to address their need for sub-stance use or mental health treatment.

According to county superintendents it is notunusual for people incarcerated in county jails towait there for months while awaiting placement ina substance use treatment facility; increasing theavailability of community-based treatment couldexpedite the movement of individuals into thecommunity more quickly and avoid county incar-ceration costs.


9/16


Although research demonstrates theeffectiveness and value of specializedtreatment and supervision programs

for high-risk and high-need populationson probation and parole, the state doesnot appropriate any funds for thesemodels.

Research indicates that intensive probation orparole supervision, combined with effective addic-tion treatment has been shown to result in an 18percent reduction in recidivism.

Fifteen percent of the clients served in the statesaddiction treatment system in 2008 were under

parole or probation supervision. No standardized or coordinated approach exists

to identify which probationers or parolees shouldbe prioritized for access to state substance abusetreatment resources.

A modest investment in targeted andevidence-based treatment services forthe high-risk and high-need individuals

would have a signicant impact onrecidivism.

Of the approximately 2,000 people sentenced tofelony probation or released to parole in FY2009,1200 number are medium or high risk. Of thesealmost 700 need addiction and/or mental healthtreatment services.

For an annual investment of $350,000 the statecould provide addiction, mental health and co-occurring services to approximately 100 high-risk

parolees and felony probationers. For an annual investment of $1,300,000 the state

could provide services for approximately 400medium/ high risk parolees and high risk felonyprobationers.

For an annual investment of $2,400,000 the statecould provide services for approximately all 700medium and high risk parolees and probationers.


10/16

0 Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire

VI. Policy Framework

1.

Reduce spending

on corrections

2.

Reinvest in sanction &

treatment programs

3.

Increase public safety by

reducing recidivism

Goals

1.

Reduce prison population

by 590 men & 56 women by

FY2015

2.

Reinvest 50% of

savings in treatment

& supervision

3.

Reduce revocations from

parole by 40% & probation

by 20% by FY2015

Outcomes

Projected Impact on the Prison Population

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

3,300

3,500

Apr-1

5

Jan-15

Oct-1

4

Jul-1

4

Apr-1

4

Jan-14

Oct-1

3

Jul-1

3

Apr-1

3

Jan-13

Oct-1

2

Jul-1

2

Apr-1

2

Jan-12

Oct-1

1

Jul-1

1

Apr-1

1

Jan-11

Oct-1

0

Jul-1

0

Apr-1

0

Jan-10

2,863

3,029

2,988

2,342

FY 201213 FY 201415

Policy OptionsA. Focus supervision on high-risk offenders.

B. Use short, swift and certain jail sanctions.

C. Establish intermediate sanction program &designated parole revocation facility.

D. Reinvest in treatment for high-risk, high-needprobationers and parolees.

E. Ensure everyone leaving prison receives at leastnine months of supervision.

F. Require nonviolent offenders to serve 100-120%of their minimum sentence.

Baseline

Projection

Baseline

w/ DCC

Impact

Impactof Policy

Options

Note: The Baseline projection is from the Center for Public Policy Studies projection

(march 2009) based on the Ofce of Energy and Planning population forecast. The Base -

line w/ DCC Impact assumes the Division of Community of Corrections reduces parole

revocations to priosn by 10 percent. The Impact of Policy Options projection applies

conservative assumptions about the impact of the policy options presented in this report

to the baseline w/ DCC impact projection.


11/16


B Use short, swift and certain sanctions, including jail time, to reduce crime andrevocation rates among people sentenced to felony probation.

Description

Enable judges to establish a sanction period ofup to ve days in jail, which would allow PPOs torespond to probation violations without a courthearing, unless requested by the probationer.

Limit the use of this jail sanction by statutory pol-icy to a maximum of ve days for each felony pro-bation sentence.

Analysis

In FY2009, approximately 2,800 people were sen-

tenced to probation supervision in New Hamp-shire. In the same year, PPOs brought 1,735probationers to court for violation hearings. Wellover half of these violation hearings (1,129) werefor violations of conditions of supervision.

In one-third of the hearings held for probationerswho had violated a condition of supervision, thejudge revoked the persons probation, sentencing

him or her to prison or jail. In the remaining two-

thirds of condition violation hearings, the judgereturned the person to probation supervision.

County jail superintendents report that probation-ers awaiting violation hearings spend as much as10 to 30 days in jail.

Providing probation ofcers with some discre-tion to hold offenders accountable for breakingthe rules of supervision as opposed to requiringthem to respond in every instance with a courthearing can substantially boost the immediacyand certainty of responses.

Probation departments in both Georgia and Hawaiihave implemented policies that enable probationofcers to respond to condition violations withshort, swift, and certain sanctions. Researchersevaluating these policy changes have found thatthe Georgia policy reduced the number of days thatprobationers spent in jail on violations or awaitingcourt hearings by 70 percent.

A Focus community-based supervision resources on high-risk offenders.

Description

Direct, by statute, probation and parole ofcers(PPOs) to actively supervise low and medium risk

offenders on misdemeanor probation for no morethan nine months, felony probation for 12 monthsand parolees for 18 months. Direct further, by stat-ute, that the PPO place people who complete thissupervision period successfully and for whomadditional active supervision is unnecessary onadministrative supervision.

Analysis

Focus group meetings among PPOs, county attor-neys, public defenders, and judges reected a con-

sensus that probation and parole caseloads are toohigh and some probation sentences are too long;as a result, there are insufcient resources to con-centrate on those offenders most likely to reoff-end.

Half of all people on parole supervision in NewHampshire who fail to comply with their condi-tions of supervision do so within the rst eight

months of their release from prison. Shortening the length of time spent actively super-

vising probationers and parolees who have com-plied with their conditions of supervision and whoare low or medium risk enables probation andparole ofcers to concentrate their attention onhigh-risk probationers and parolees.

In the last ve years, laws have been enacted inArizona, Nevada, and Delaware to frontloadsupervision resources, and recidivism rates sub-sequently declined in each of these states.


12/16


C Establish an intermediate sanction program and a designated parole revocationfacility to respond more effectively to parole violations.

Description

Part I Intermediate Sanction Program

Establish an intermediate sanction program, to beused in lieu of revocation, for parole violators. Use20 C1 (halfway house) beds to create the one weekresidential sanction, which would create the capac-ity to serve up to 973 parolees annually.

Use of the intermediate sanction program willreduce the number of parolees admitted to prisonfor a revocation by 20 percent. This reduction is inaddition to the 20 percent reduction referenced inOption D.

Part II Parole Revocation Facility

Designate a secure housing unit as a parole revo-cation facility for all parolees revoked to prison.Deliver focused evidence-based programmingaimed at reengaging parolees in their supervisionplan. Modify the revocation process to require astandardized three-month revocation period in theparole revocation facility.

Analysis

Wardens and correctional ofcers at the Concord

State Prison reported that most people admitted tothat facility for a parole revocation were incarcer-ated in the reception facility, where no programsare offered that might address substance use orother issues that contributed to the revocation ofthe persons parole.

PPOs report that they do not have access to resi-dential, day reporting centers, or other intermedi-ate sanctions. Without such options, they oftenend up ignoring violations of conditions of release,until they become serious or frequent enough tomerit revocation to prison.

Probation and parole ofcers in Texas have accessto intermediate sanction facilities and, in 2007, pol-icymakers increased the capacity of these facilitiesto reduce the number of people revoked to prisonand to avert growth in the prison population. Poli-cymakers in Kansas shortened the mandatoryparole revocation period from six to three monthsfor all parole revocations to focus resources oncommunity-based programming/treatment.


13/16


DEnsure that high-risk probationers and parolees with serious addiction and/ormental health disorders are monitored with rapid drug tests and have access totreatment programs.

Description

Reinvest correctional savings to expand availabilityof effective addiction and mental health treatmentprograms, which community-based behavioralhealth providers deliver to high-risk, high-needindividuals on probation and parole supervision.

Direct DOC, with BDAS, the Governors Com-mission and BBH, to identify, train, and approvebehavioral health treatment providers to servehigh risk, high need probationers and parolees.

Use rapid drug screening technology to enableprobation and parole ofcers to conduct random

drug use tests of high-risk substance using offend-ers to help monitor treatment progress and com-pliance with conditions of release.

The allocation of these dedicated and targetedbehavioral health treatment resources, along withrapid drug screening and freeing up PPOs timeto focus on high risk offenders (Option A) willtogether reduce parole revocations by an addi-tional 10 percent (beyond the 10 percent reductionestimated due to the Division of Community Cor-rections), and will reduce probation revocations by20 percent.

Analysis

Research demonstrates that signicant reductionsin recidivism can be achieved only when treat-ment and supervision resources are concentratedon high-risk, high-need individuals and when thetreatment programs are delivered by high qualitycommunity-based providers.

Ohio has demonstrated the impact of targetingcontracted community-based treatment programsat high risk offenders and evaluating programs forquality.


14/16


E Ensure everyone leaving prison receives at least nine months of post-release,community-based supervision.

Description

Require people in prison to be released to parole

supervision at least nine months prior to reachingthe end of their maximum sentence.

Apply this policy to those individuals with, at thetime of enactment, 12 months or more remaininguntil the end of their maximum sentence.

Provide victim advocates with the opportunity towork closely with crime victims and survivors toassist them through the prisoners release period;identify and assess the crime victims most impor-tant needs related to information, notication,protection/safety, restitution and other issues and

concerns; and develop a case plan to address theirmost important needs, and link them with appro-priate support and services.

Analysis

Sixteen percent of the people released from prison

in FY2009, or 224 individuals, completed theirmaximum sentence in prison and, as a result, werereleased to no community-based supervision.

People who remain incarcerated in prison, eitherbecause of a parole board decision or because theyprefer to avoid parole supervision, may present ahigh risk of reoffending when released. By requir-ing these offenders to serve the remaining ninemonths of their sentence on intensive supervision,PPOs can monitor their transition to the commu-nity.

Most states with a typical 85 percent truth-in-sen-tencing policy have reserved 15 percent of thesentence for post-release supervision in the com-munity as part of their sentencing structure (e.g.Arizona, Kansas).


15/16


F Reinforce truth-in-sentencing by requiring nonviolent, property, and drug offendersto serve 00 to 0 percent of their minimum sentence

Description

Revise the existing disciplinary credit policy to

incentivize good conduct as well as participationin recommended (and available) programs.

Establish that nonviolent, property, or drug offend-ers sentenced on or after a future date serve no lessthan 100 percent and no more than 120 percent oftheir minimum sentence. The revised disciplin-ary credit policy should determine when the DOCor parole board shall place the offender on parolesupervision.

Analysis

In a focus group, victim advocates stressed that

the states truth-in-sentencing policy of requiringoffenders to serve 100 percent of their minimumbefore being released should not be modied.

Twenty-two percent of New Hampshires prisonpopulation in November 2009 (or 649 people) hadserved 100 percent of their minimum sentence,but remained incarcerated. People in this grouphad served an average (median) of 500 days pasttheir minimum sentence date. Approximately 270of these people were convicted of nonviolent, prop-erty, or drug offenses.

Parole board staff and members cite the followingreasons delaying parole release: institutional mis-conduct, lack of program participation or comple-tion, or an unacceptable parole plan for housingupon release.

Waiting for someone to complete a program inprison after that person has been warehousedwithout participation in a program for an exten-sive period of time is inefcient and costly,especially considering that the same services canbe delivered in the community and have a much

greater impact than if they were provided behindthe walls. Research reects that prison-basedprograms are only half as effective at reducingrecidivism as similar programs delivered in a com-munity-based setting while the offender is undersupervision. For example, providing drug treat-ment in a correctional facility has only been shownto reduce recidivism by six percent while provid-ing the same programming in the community canreduce recidivism by 12 percent.


16/16

justice reinvestment in new hampshire jan 2010

Documents