Pubdate: Wed, 22 Mar 2006
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2006 The Media News Group
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Does not print letters from outside circulation area
Author: Terry Vau Dell, Staff Writer
Cited: Proposition 36 http://www.prop36.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime 
Prevention Act)

MONEY CUTS ENDANGER COUNTY'S DRUG COURT

OROVILLE -- The much-acclaimed and oft-imitated Butte County drug
court could be in jeopardy.

State funding cuts for drug treatment, combined with rising local
operating costs, have helped to create the problem.

County and court officials, who met last week to discuss ways of
salvaging the novel drug-treatment program, say that "all options are
on the table," including possibly combining the local drug court and
voter-approved Proposition 36 treatment courts.

At a time when methamphetamine abuse is at record levels locally, that
would mean fewer addicts will receive treatment this year through the
Butte County criminal justice system.

Proposition 36, which was passed by California voters in November 2000
to offer treatment instead of a jail cell to first- and second-time
nonviolent drug offenders, is due to expire this year.

Until new legislation is passed to continue the program, Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger has included funding in his budget for a one-year
Proposition 36 extension.

But it leaves Butte County with less money than it had received under
the state drug-treatment initiative.

That will require some "revisions" to the local drug treatment courts,
said Dr. Brad Luz, director of the Butte County Behavioral Health Department.

Lisa Cox, assistant director of the department, estimates at least 60
of the 240 persons who are eligible now to receive drug treatment
locally under Proposition 36 would have to be put on a waiting list.

Reductions would also have to be made in the county's separate
drug-court program, which is primarily for more longtime narcotic
offenders who have violated felony probation.

While no consensus has yet been reached, county officials who met last
week with local judges discussed combining both treatment courts into
one.

"It won't work," predicts retired Butte County Superior Court Judge
Darrell Stevens, who pioneered one of the first drug courts in the
nation in 1995.

While the two treatment courts have the same overall goal -- getting
criminals who use drugs into recovery -- they serve different types of
offenders and go about it in different ways, Stevens said.

One principal difference is that drug court participants can be jailed
for dirty drug tests, an option generally not available in the
Proposition 36 court.

Stevens, who was not invited to last week's meeting -- an oversight
that will be corrected, say county officials, agrees with District
Attorney Mike Ramsey that "diluting" the two court programs will
undermine their effectiveness and leave many criminal drug offenders
without any treatment.

Ramsey said he has witnessed the importance of local drug treatment
courts over the years and believes crime rates will go up if "some
people are cut loose without any treatment or supervision."

"Everyone agrees meth is the driving engine in our criminal justice
system," said Ramsey. "But we don't have room in the jails to lock up
everyone, and so we need a more holistic view toward intervention and
treatment."

Added Ramsey, "But don't leave Butte County's hands tied to the state.
That's my position."

Ramsey favors asking the Board of Supervisors to dip into the county
general fund, not only to make up the drug treatment court's current
deficit, but to actually increase funding.

Stevens, who retired from the local bench last year, said scraping up
money to operate the local drug court is hardly a new problem.

In fact, he notes many of the other counties and states where he has
helped start up similar drug courts rely on little, if any, government
funding.

Stevens believes criminal drug abuse is a "community problem," and
that local hospitals, businesses

Advertisement Check out what's on TV now!

and residents would subsidize local treatment courts if
asked.

He noted Chicoans recently donated $5 million to build a planned
50-bed drug rehabilitation center near the airport that will be
operated by the Salvation Army.

"There are very few families in this county that have not been
impacted by drugs or alcohol and there is a lot of support for drug
court," the retired judge noted.

"It's epidemic; are we going to say 'we don't have the money, so we'll
do away with treatment'?" the retired judge asked.

Luz denies ever suggesting eliminating the local drug court
entirely.

However, less money this year will mean fewer people can get
treatment, he says.

Butte's share of the one-year Proposition 36 allocation in the
governor's 2006-07 preliminary budget is nearly $898,000 -- about
$16,000 less than the county received last year.

SB803, which calls for continuing the original $120 million annual
Proposition 30 allocation statewide, is currently pending in the state
Legislature.

Ironically, the original Proposition 36 proponents don't support the
bill because it would require mandatory drug testing as a probation
condition and allow judges to jail violators, like in county drug courts.

In addition to the Proposition 36 cuts this year, Butte County
recently lost a Department of Justice grant that had funded two
part-time drug treatment court positions.

At the same time, staffing costs have gone up, fueled by an
across-the-board salary hike recently for county employees, based on a
pay study with comparable-sized counties, according to Luz.

"We have two proven treatment courts that are being chipped away at a
time when this county is in the middle of a drug crisis ... it's very
frustrating," Luz observed.

"Simply put, we have fewer treatment dollars and that will mean fewer
people being treated locally," he added.

Law enforcement, health, probation and court officials are scheduled
to meet again on April 4 to devise a local strategy.

All agree that drug treatment courts are effective.

An independent study in 2004 found that treating criminal drug
abusers, rather than incarcerating them, saves Butte County about
$200,000 annually in terms of lower recidivism and reduced crime rates.

According to state records, nearly half of Butte's Proposition 36
offenders, many whose primary drug was methamphetamine, graduated from
the local treatment court last year.

Of those, only about 15 percent were rearrested for new
offenses.

"We have all seen that drug court works. And to let something die now
just because of a financial blip would be a real tragedy," said Stevens.

THE ISSUE: Butte County drug court, among the first in the nation to
provide treatment instead of a jail cell for narcotic offenders, is in
financial difficulty.

WHAT'S NEW: State funding cutbacks and rising operating costs will
likely mean fewer addicts will receive court-ordered treatment locally
this year.

WHAT'S NEXT: Officials will meet next month to discuss possibly
combining the highly successful drug court with a similar
voter-approved "Proposition 36" treatment court, a move one retired
judge predicts "won't work." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake