Pubdate: Thu, 10 May 2001
Source: Houston Press (TX)
Copyright: 2001 New Times, Inc
Contact:  http://www.houston-press.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/199
Author: Steve McVicker

THIS TIME, A PLAN TO BRING DRUG COURTS HERE HAS REAL TEETH

For several years, state Representative Senfronia Thompson tried to 
persuade Harris County officials to create special drug courts to oversee 
intensive supervision of those convicted of using illicit substances or 
abusing alcohol. Each time she tried, the Houston legislator's efforts were 
rebuffed.

Now, as a bill authored by the longtime Democrat sails through the 
legislature, Thompson finally has the county's attention by threatening a 
hefty portion of its law enforcement funding.

Last month the Texas House of Representatives passed Thompson's House Bill 
1287, which would force Harris, Bexar, El Paso, Hidalgo and Tarrant 
counties to create the special drug courts. The measure is now in the 
Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

"It was very popular in committee," reports Patrick Johnson, Thompson's 
staff counsel. He expects the measure to be approved and signed into law 
without a problem. "Most of the Harris County delegation wants a drug 
court, and they want to get started on it."

It is not, however, extremely popular with Harris County District Attorney 
Chuck Rosenthal. Although Rosenthal is not opposed to drug courts per se, 
he is opposed to the sanctions that are included in the bill for the 
counties that fail to establish those special courts.

If the county does not create a drug court by September 2002, it stands to 
lose a significant amount of state grants earmarked for crime-fighting. An 
example of the threatened funding can be seen with the Harris County 
Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force. In the fiscal year ending May 
1999, the force alone received more than $3.1 million in Department of 
Justice grant money that is funneled through the governor's office. Grants 
to fight juvenile crime and spousal abuse are also in potential jeopardy if 
the county fails to establish drug courts.

"I'm not against them," Rosenthal says. "I'm just not sure that it's going 
to make the difference that Senfronia Thompson and some other people would 
like to see."

But Thompson and other supporters of the bill think drug courts do indeed 
make a difference.

"It has a greater success rate and lower recidivism rate than any other 
program that exists -- more than deferred adjudication, parole or 
probation," says Johnson.

Unlike traditional interaction in courtrooms, drug court judges have 
one-on-one relationships with every offender for the duration of the 
offender's participation in the program, usually about 12 months. During 
that time, the participants -- nonviolent first offenders -- are required 
to be employed or in job training, and to attend a daily 12-step meeting 
such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous.

They are also subject to almost daily drug-testing, especially in the 
initial phase of their program. However, unlike programs such as deferred 
adjudication, where one bad urinalysis can send a probationer to prison for 
his full term, drug courts are generally more tolerant of relapses. They 
are designed to eliminate the adversarial relationship between the court 
and the offender.

The concept began in Miami in 1989, in an effort to reduce soaring drug 
case dockets and to break the addictions of offenders.

According to the National Drug Court Institute, 550 drug courts are now in 
operation across the country. In addition to producing a lower recidivism 
rate, the NDCI claims that drug courts also produce a $10 savings for every 
$1 spent on the court. The savings, says the NDCI, are in reduced prison costs.

Rosenthal is not convinced by the numbers touted by the drug court advocates.

"We've looked at some of these drug programs around the country, and we 
really don't see a whole lot of difference between the results of these 
programs and just putting offenders on deferred adjudication," says the 
district attorney. "The success rates are virtually imperceptible." 
Rosenthal says his people have reviewed the drug court operation in 
Oakland, California. "They count it as a success if someone went through 
the program and then wasn't arrested for a felony within six months," he 
says. "By my standards, that's not really a success."

Thompson's bill does not provide funding for the new court. So the job of 
establishing one here -- the Legislative Budget Board estimates it will 
cost at least $300,000 a year -- would fall to Harris County Commissioners 
Court. Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack calls the idea of tying law 
enforcement grant money to the creation of a drug court "legislative 
blackmail."

"It sounds like a perfect bill for Governor Perry to veto," says Radack. 
"It's ludicrous to think that you are going to be compelled to do something 
that you don't need. And I yield to the district attorney when it comes to 
deciding whether we need courts or not. Why punish the county and the 
taxpayers for not creating something they don't need? Is there somebody 
running around town that needs to be a judge, or what?"

Somewhat surprisingly, the president of the Texas Civil Liberties Union 
tends to agree with Radack. Greg Gladden, a defense attorney who 
specializes in drug cases, notes that if the court is created, it likely 
will be presided over by visiting or retired judges. He adds that the idea 
is similar to the so-called project courts that existed here for a few 
years in the mid-1990s.

"The problem is they don't have any accountability to the electorate or 
anybody, except to the judges who pay them," Gladden says. "The money they 
bring in   goes directly into the fund that funds the court. So it's just a 
real bad idea."

Radack couldn't agree more.

"If [Thompson] really wants to do something," says the commissioner, "why 
doesn't she bring home the bacon and get our fair share of money for things 
like mental health and mental retardation? We get screwed to the wall on 
that. Why penalize us?"

The bill anticipates that the counties will seek federal money to operate 
the courts. "Which is kind of iffy given the sanctions that you have 
against the counties if we don't come up with the funding for the program," 
Rosenthal says.

Rosenthal also points out that the court he is most familiar with, the one 
in Dallas County, is basically the pet project of Judge John Creuzot, who, 
in the D.A.'s opinion, is "almost evangelistic" about the concept.

"But I don't know anyone from Harris County who has come forward and 
indicated the same vitality," Rosenthal says. "I think it really has to do 
with the vigor of the judge to set the vigor of the program. But I'm not 
averse to trying anything."

But just not with a legislative gun to his head.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth