DRUG COURTS SOON TO BE IN SESSION

They have the judges, they have the money and they're virtually guaranteed
to have plenty of clients.

Beginning next year, drug courts will come to Ocean, Monmouth and four
other counties, giving hard-core drug addicts what proponents call their
best chance to get clean and stay that way.

Acting Gov. DiFrancesco in September signed legislation that allocated
$14.7 million for the program. The money will pay the salaries of six drug
court judges, and provide funding to the state Administrative Office of the
Courts to run the programs and to the Division of Addictive Services in the
state Department of Health and Senior Services.

The bulk of the money -- $10 million -- will go for extensive
substance-abuse treatment of the clients, officials said.

It is not known how much money Monmouth and Ocean counties will get from
the program. But each will receive $260,377 to fund aspects of the program
from Jan. 3 through June 30, said John Wieck, manager of criminal court
services within the state Administrative Office of the Courts. Drug courts
also are scheduled to begin in 2002 in Bergen, Hudson, Gloucester and
Morris counties.

Beginning Jan. 3, each court must advertise for and hire staff who need to
be in place by April, when the programs begin seeing "participants" or
"clients." They are not called "defendants," as in criminal court, because
adversarial relationships are abandoned in drug court.

Initially, the program in Ocean County will serve 110 people, said James J.
Kelly, who manages the criminal division for the county. "We are still
planning how we are going to operate the program."

Superior Court Judge Peter J. Giovine, the county's presiding criminal
court judge, will take over the drug court as well, Kelly said.

Sen. Robert W. Singer, R-Ocean, said, however, that he understands the new
drug court judge will be Darlene J. Pereksta of the Ortley Beach section of
Dover, who serves as deputy chief of staff in the governor's office.

Pereksta was confirmed by the Senate Oct. 3 for a "drug-court" seat, but
often the judgeships are moved around within the county later.

Judge Paul F. Chaiet will preside over drug court in Monmouth County, which
also will have 110 participants to start, officials said.

Treatment emphasized

Although they vary widely in how they operate from one jurisdiction to
another, drug courts implement one basic philosophy: Use intensive
supervision and positive reinforcement to get and keep addicts off drugs,
and they will return to productive lives.

Participants are helped to get sober and obtain high school diplomas or
high school equivalency certifications, find and keep jobs, and develop
mentor relationships with someone in their communities. They are ordered to
undergo regular drugs testing, often more than once a week, and a failure
to appear for any court hearing or drug test can result in an immediate
bench warrant and a stay in the county jail.

Who gets into drug court? Those addicted to drugs or alcohol whose criminal
record includes no violent offenses and minimal drug charges involving
distribution within a drug-free school zone. Although each jurisdiction
must determine what constitutes a minimal number of drug charges, some have
chosen two offenses.

The Administrative Office of the Courts is so enamored of the drug- court
phenomenon that it plans to have such programs in all 21 counties within
two years.

At a hearing in April of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee,
state Appellate Court Judge Richard J. Williams, who is on leave from the
bench to serve as chief administrator of the office of the courts, told
lawmakers the drug court program in place in five counties steers
nonviolent offenders away from prison time.

Court called cheaper

Williams said drug courts may help reduce the disproportionate number of
minorities in the state's prison system because 80 percent of the minor
offenders are black or Hispanic. He said drug court is cheaper for
taxpayers because treating offenders is about half as expensive as
imprisoning them.

It costs $34,218 to keep someone in state prison for one year. Counseling
and treatment ordered through the drug court program, which includes six
months in an inpatient program, costs $17,266 the first year.

And although the start-up is expensive, if the goal is to restore lives and
improve social ills, not just to move offenders in and out of the prison
system, it is worth it, Wieck said.

"In the long run, we hope it will be cheaper," Wieck said. "People will be
getting jobs, paying taxes. The long-term benefits outweigh the early costs."

The evidence so far is that the treatment keeps offenders from returning to
drug use and from becoming involved in additional crimes, according to the
Administrative Office of the Courts.

Drug courts allow nonviolent offenders with addictions to enter a program
of judge-monitored treatment and counseling. The counseling component can
sometimes last years. Pioneered in Miami in 1989, drug courts have shown
success in preventing recidivism, proponents say.

According to a December 2000 report from the Administrative Office of the
Courts, these are the benefits so far of drug court programs throughout the
nation: More than 1,000 babies that would have been born addicted to drugs
have instead been born drug-free, saving $250,000 in medical costs per
infant. 3,500 parents in the program have regained custody of their
children. 4,500 drug court participants have started or returned to paying
child-support obligations. 73 percent of drug court participants have
retained or obtained jobs.

Court has detractors

Not everyone supports the drug court program. Private defense attorneys are
concerned that many participants will opt to use the services of public
defenders since there is no need for a trial. Some opponents say the
program costs too much and benefits too few. A judge earning $115,000 will
supervise about 100 people when the job could be done by a probation
officer earning less than half that, objectors say.

Critics say there is nothing new or innovative in the programs and charge
that proponents are marketing their needs differently to get state or
federal funds to help run the court system.

James M. Waters, president of the Lakewood/Ocean County Chapter of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has other
concerns. He suggests that before a drug court gets under way in Ocean
County, some sort of study is necessary to determine the fairness of state
laws that provide for higher penalties for those caught with drugs near
schools, parks and other recreational areas.

Because Lakewood has so many parks and schools, the drug-free zones in the
town basically constitute the entire town, making people caught with drugs
in Lakewood vulnerable to higher sentences, he said.

"Why should there be a separate penalty, if you are caught in Lincroft or
Deal or even Brick?" Waters asked. "It has to be fair and equitable. We've
got to find a way a youngster in one town is not to be punished differently
from a youngster in another town.

"We need a society that represents fairness and equality for everyone,"
Waters said. "That is why I basically feel representatives from different
minority groups need to be involved. I think some of the punishment we have
right now is not equal and fair across the board."

Singer, the state senator, sees no need to change the laws.

"Don't buy or use drugs in Lakewood," Singer said. "I have no problem with
that message. Should other municipalities catch up to us? Yes. The
Legislature passed drug-free school zones to let pushers know that selling
drugs near our children, our most treasured resource, would be vigorously
prosecuted. I don't want to water that down in any form or way."

First Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Terrence P. Farley, who runs the
county Narcotic Strike Force, said that his job is to implement the
statutes set by the Legislature, not to tinker with them.

"The statutory edicts will have to be maintained unless the court is going
to somehow override the wishes of the Legislature," Farley said. "I would
be surprised if any law enforcement or legislative group looks to revise
the drug-free zone, at least in a downward manner."