STATE TAKES A BITE OUT OF CRIME PREVENTION

Crime-prevention programs like DARE could take a hit in funding with a
change in how citations can be paid.

A new law, 2007 Wisconsin Act 84, became effective March 27 and
repeals the ability of court judges to impose a contribution from a
defendant or offer a contribution to a crime-prevention organization
as an alternative to sentencing or judgment.

Popular programs like Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education, or DARE,
could be among those that suffer the most.

In a letter to municipal court judges, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
stated, "Although the organizations that receive the funds are often
valuable to the community, this funding mechanism creates the
potential for inappropriate prosecutorial charging decisions, the
appearance of fundraising or favoritism by the judges and a general
perception by the public that favorable outcomes in criminal cases can
be bought by defendants who can afford them."

Some DARE programs have already seen a decline in the amount of money
generated from such contributions. For example, Onalaska DARE received
$10,750 in such payments, but, in 2007, the amount received was $5,050.

According to Pam Sharp, administrative manager for the Onalaska police
department, the forfeitures paid to DARE in Onalaska were a
significant part of the revenue sources. In addition to those funds,
the city has community fundraisers and applies for grants as other
sources of revenue.

Although she declined to be specific on its DARE budget because no
proposals have been presented to the city finance committee or city
council, Sharp said, "Right now, because of (the new law), we won't
get those contributions. It has the potential to be a major blow to
the program. We'll have to be creative and put alternative proposals
before the finance committee and city council."

What happens in the future, Sharp said, depends upon how creative the
program and the city can be in coming up with alternative funds.

"It's a very popular program and there is a lot of interest in wanting
to keep it going. The city seems to care about such education and I'm
confident we can keep the program going."

The DARE program for municipalities outside Onalaska and La Crosse -
such as West Salem, Bangor and Holmen - are operated through the La
Crosse County Sheriff's Department. Captain Mike Horstmann said the
circuit courts had stopped the contributions around 2004-05, so there
was minimal impact on the county-wide program from the new law.

"We kind of lost out on those contributions," Horstmann said. "They
helped fund things like textbooks. But we have the Chili Cook-off and
other fundraisers and small individual donations."

The DARE program with the county is financed through taxpayer dollars
allocated to the sheriff's department's budget. The only DARE expense
paid through the county budget is the salary of one DARE officer.
Horstmann said supplies are minimal. Funds needed for textbooks and
other materials are obtained through major fundraisers such as the
annual GREAT/DARE Chili Cook-off.

In another bite out of municipal funds, a new state law also requires
counties to send the state a greater portion of its receipts from
fines collected as part of the driver improvement surcharge. Counties
had been able to keep 61.5 percent of the surcharge while sending the
remaining 38.5 percent to the state department of administration. The
new law, 2007 Wisconsin Act 111 requires counties to increase their
transfer of state payments from 38.5 percent to 40 percent.

Act 111 also increases the amount of the driver improvement surcharge
on fines for a second offense of driving with a prohibited alcohol
content more than .08 but less than .1. The surcharge increases from
$355 to $365 and is in addition to the municipal fine or forfeiture
plus costs, fees and other surcharges imposed.

Speaking of fines and forfeitures, an attempt by Judge John Brinkman
to make a uniform schedule of fines for under-age drinking for all the
municipalities was rejected by representatives of Holmen, Bangor and
West Salem.

Brinkman told the joint municipal court representatives that having
different sets of fines creates problems in the court room. When
defendants appear in the courtroom with all the other offenders of
different municipalities charged with underage drinking, they hear a
different fine for the same offense because the offender was in a
different municipality. One municipality might require loss of license
while another might not.

"It's an issue of fairness as it is being issued from one conviction
to another," Brinkman said. "It's an area where we could get some type
of consensus. I don't really care what the consensus is, it just makes
sense to have one set of (fines)."

Bangor Police Chief Scott Alo objected.

"When we started this joint municipal court, it was under the idea we
would maintain our autonomy and determine what we would prosecute and
what we would fine. I'm not in favor of being lumped together... I
don't think kids are going to plan their parties around where it is
cheaper (if they get caught)."