STATE FUNDING DRIES UP FOR LOCAL CITIES' DRUG COURTS

Each week, in courtrooms in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach, dozens
of recovering drug addicts and alcoholics come before specialized "drug
courts," hoping to avoid jail time and restart their lives.

Though these closely monitored voluntary substance abuse programs are
tougher and more effective than incarceration, supporters say, their
dedicated state funding will effectively end July 1, when the new budget
takes effect.

A Senate bill carried over from this session could help revive the courts,
but no new funding would be available until the next budget begins in 2004.

If drug courts were to totally disappear, supporters say the state would
lose both a crucial rehabilitation tool and a key defense in its war on drugs.

Police Lt. Neil C. Thompson knows at least one thing for certain: Drugs
cause crime.

With 19 years on the Virginia Beach force, 10 of them undercover, Thompson
has seen this first hand. He estimates that 80 percent of crimes can be
linked in some way to substance abuse.

He's lost count of the times he's arrested someone, only to kick down a
door three days later and find the same person inside, out on bond and
involved in yet another crime.

And these aren't just drug-related crimes such as possession, manufacturing
and distribution, Thompson said. They're also the crimes addicts commit to
finance their habits, such as burglary, prostitution, larceny and forgery.

Thompson, a drug court proponent, sees the program as a way "to make one of
these people a productive member of society."

Statistics support his claim. According to state figures, drug court
programs slash recidivism rates from the traditional 50 percent down to 3
to 7 percent.

Administrators say this reduction is a result of the tight watch they keep
on the participants, with:

* Strict urinalysis testing, conducted randomly every week.

* Intensive drug treatment and mandatory attendance at either Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

* Frequent reporting to court with immediate sanctions, including short
jail stints, for any relapses or noncompliance. This constant supervision
makes drug court tougher than the traditional prison-parole model in that
it "holds the defendants accountable for their sobriety," said Dr. Donna
Boone, a drug case manager with the administrative arm of the Virginia
Supreme Court.

While the option of postponing or avoiding jail time may seem like a
fantastic trade-off, she said, many addicts are hesitant to choose drug court.

"They have to turn their lives over for a year to this very close
scrutiny," she said. Many would rather serve their time and then be left
relatively alone with standard probation.

The $2.6 million that state drug courts currently receive goes to case
managers and parole officers, as well as drug screening and private
counseling for those participants who can't afford it.

These workers keep close contact with one another, said Boone, ensuring
that "all the cracks that addicts have had to slip through in the past . .
. have dried up."

Completing the drug court program usually takes about a year, well beyond
the estimated 120 days it takes an addict to recover, according to state
figures. Graduation comes only when the participant can convince his judge,
case manager and therapist that he's no longer addicted.

Compared to the $19,000 to $40,000 per year price tag for jail or prison
and probation, drug court costs around $3,000 to $5,000 a year, according
to state figures. Also, since they're required to work tax-paying jobs, the
program's participants are able to help pay for their treatment.

But the program's true savings aren't strictly monetary, said Boone.

In getting addicts off the street, she said, the state also eliminates all
the crimes they would have committed, not to mention the stress they would
place on their families.

"If you hold their feet to fire until they're sober, you really win many
times over," she said.

Elimination of dedicated drug court money will affect local cities in
different ways:

* In Portsmouth, its 2-year-old program will most likely continue in some
abbreviated manner, said Circuit Court Judge Johnny E. Morrison. The city
received $125,000 from the state two years ago and $166,000 this past year.
In addition, it received a two-year federal grant of $499,000 in October.
This money was intended to expand the program to 150 participants from its
current 28, as well as to create an aftercare program for its first batch
of graduates, due in several months. This money may now be used simply to
maintain the program at its current level.

* In Norfolk, the loss of state funds will force the city to revisit an
unfunded time when various city agencies donated their labor, said
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Felte. Norfolk's drug court has
doubled in the past year, said Felte, to around 40 active participants. It
had 72 graduates as of December.

The program, begun in 1998, received $275,000 in state funding in 2001 and
$166,000 this cycle. Without this money, said Felte, it may be impossible
to handle the current caseload with the city's original in-kind model.

* In Virginia Beach, the end of state funding means the end of its program.
Begun in 1997 with a combination of federal and state grants and volunteer
labor, the city's drug court currently runs on $175,000 in state funds.

Administered through the city's general district court, the program
primarily handles DUIs and is the country's second such program to do so.
It has graduated 232 people since it began.

When funding ends July 1, two case workers will probably lose their jobs,
and 37 participants will most likely be returned to an already overloaded
community relations board, said general district court Judge Virginia L.
Cochran.

Virginia Beach has applied for $500,000 in federal funding. However, the
city is not eligible for this money unless the state matches 25 percent.
State funding cuts effectively eliminate this option.

From her post in Richmond, Boone, like the rest of the drug court
community, is awaiting the December session, when dedicated funding for the
courts could be revisited. Discontinuing this funding, she said, would be a
grave mistake.

"We're going to pay for addiction if we don't do the things effective in
curing addiction," she said.