SENTENCING SERVICES' REPRIEVE PLEASES DURHAM COURTS

DURHAM - Lawyer John Fitzpatrick knew what was at stake when the state
almost ordered Durham to shut its alternative sentencing program
because of a budget crunch.

He used the program to help clients steer clear of prison while
finding the help they need to address problems such as drug addiction.
Most recently, a 25-year-old probation violator was facing two to
three years in prison. But after a Durham Sentencing Services
evaluation was ordered by Superior Court Judge Leon Stanback, it was
recommended that he remain in college and complete a drug-treatment
program.

So no one was more relieved than Fitzpatrick when the program was
saved. "Sentencing Services allows the court to see a full view of a
defendant," Fitzpatrick said. "Oftentimes, all the judge knows is the
circumstances surrounding the crime. With a full evaluation from a
third party, it gives everyone involved a chance to see the factors
that lead up to the criminal behavior."

The Sentencing Services program gathers social, educational and
financial histories on defendants charged with nonviolent crimes and
matches clients' needs with available community resources. The
majority of the defendants have committed property crimes, and 85
percent have substance-abuse problems, said Riley Butler, executive
director of Durham's Sentencing Services program.

Although the program had become a welcome resource in the Durham
County court community, its role was highlighted in October when the
state Administrative Office of the Courts targeted the program to be
cut statewide in an effort to reduce its budget by 4 percent.

The program was to have ended Nov. 30 and would have saved about $2.3
million statewide. But after a slew of calls to state legislators from
people across the political spectrum, the program was taken off the
chopping block and the amount the state court system had to reduce its
budget was reduced from 4 percent to 1 percent, or $13 million to
about $3 million.

"We were shocked and totally taken back," Butler said. "Everyone was
looking for a short-term fix, but in the long term, we save the state
$22 million a year in prison costs. The studies have shown our clients
have a 72 percent success rate of not reoffending."

Durham's is one of 37 Sentencing Services programs in the state. The
local program, which has five employees, has a $205,000 annual budget,
with $181,000 of that coming from the state AOC. The remainder is
raised locally, with the city of Durham chipping in some support.

"These programs are funded by the General Assembly, and it's our job
to decide what program is affected," said state Rep. Paul Luebke of
Durham, who fought to continue the program's financial support. "It
should be a legislative decision."

In the 2000-01 fiscal year, 889 people were considered for the program
with 288 of them referred for evaluations. Of those, 112 were
presented in court. In the first quarter of this fiscal year (July to
September), 24 plans were prepared and presented in court.

Durham's program is one of the more active in the state, with 301
plans presented in the fiscal years 1996 to 2001. Mecklenburg County
had the most plans presented to judges with 464. Wake County presented
246 during that time.

Several factors explain why Durham's program is so active. One is the
presence of the public defender's office, a central location where
Sentencing Services workers can reach potential clients. Eleven of the
39 North Carolina judicial districts have public defenders' offices.
Wake County does not.

Another factor is a decision by Durham's senior resident Superior
Court judge, Orlando Hudson, to have all probation violators handled
by the public defender's office assessed by Sentencing Services.

"The largest number of people going to prison right now are probation
violators," said Bob Brown, Durham's public defender. "The Sentencing
Services program gives us a second look to determine if there is an
alternative to prison. We have learned to use the program better in
the past 18 months than we have ever before."

Durham's program started in 1987, and at first, some defense lawyers
shied away.

"Initially, we were concerned with a possibility of breach of
confidentiality, of talking with our clients without us being there,"
Brown said. "We reached an accord on how we deal with certain issues,
and it has worked very well."

Fitzpatrick said there is still some concern about clients divulging
information about crimes but said the safe aspect of working with
probation violators is that they have already been convicted. Even so,
he said, a careful discussion is held with the client explaining the
pros and cons of being assessed by the program.

"Oftentimes, I can't be there during the interview, but I tell clients
to be honest but not talk about the crime," Fitzpatrick said. "It is
in the attorney's best interest to try and get the best situation for
his client. Sentencing Services can be a step in that process."

In the process it has helped defendants, lawyers said. Talking to
former schoolteachers, family members and neighbors, and looking
through medical records, can be timely and costly.

"If we were asked to do that kind of work, it would drive up the cost
of our services," Fitzpatrick said. "Some clients have a hard time as
it is."

Durham judges said they put a lot of weight in the assessments done by
Sentencing Services.

"The information better defines the entire social fabric of a
defendant," said Durham District Court Judge Craig Brown, who has been
on the Sentencing Services board since the late 1980s. "The
information gives judges a better idea if the person is going to
succeed on probation, and it gives judges more ammunition in terms of
information so we can make better decisions."

Hudson said he always considers the assessment.

"I probably accept their recommendations 50 to 60 percent of the
time," Hudson said. "Often, lawyers may not have done a detailed job
of checking the defendant, and that's not to assault the lawyers. It's
good to have a neutral person you can trust gather the information so
that you factor all that information into your sentencing."