DRUG COURT PRIORITY

Successful Tulare County Program Must Be Saved.

The good news is that the Tulare County Drug Court is still alive. The bad
news is that its long-term funding source and its role in dealing
judicially with drug offenders are uncertain.

What is certain is that the Porterville drug court has a proven track
record that warrants its continuation. Earlier this summer, the court had
148 recently graduated participants who had been drug-free for 18 months.
Only 5% of its graduates repeat as drug offenders, compared with 12%
nationwide. Its presiding judge, Tulare County Superior Court Judge Glade
Roper, said it has kept 400 people out of jail and saved the county between
$10 million to $15 million in incarceration costs.

Unfortunately, the $620,000, three-year federal and state grant that the
court had been operating on ran out Aug. 26. Roper, who founded the court
five years ago, met with Bill Sanders, chairman of the county Board of
Supervisors, Stan Kephart, Tulare County chief probation officer, and
Superior Court Judge Patrick O'Hara recently to work out a temporary plan
to keep the court operating until a new grant is received.

That's comforting -- on a short-term basis. But a long-term solution must
be found to keep the court going. The statistics are a clear indication
that the court is a sound investment for taxpayers. Phil Cline, Tulare
County district attorney, has said that 80% of the county's crimes are
related to drug use.

Roper has asked Tulare County supervisors for financial help, but the board
has indicated that its philosophy is not to fund federal grant programs out
of the county's general fund. Supervisor Jim Maples said the county has
many pressing needs -- including roads, libraries and Sheriff's Department
patrols -- and a small pot of money to spread around.

That's all well and good. However, the drug court is a proven winner and
federal grants awarded to start programs such as the drug court are
intended as seed money, with the idea that local governments eventually
will pick up the continuing costs. Fiscal planning should have been in the
works to keep the drug court operating.

Testing, a key drug court component, has been cut back already, and the
numbers show a slight loss in the program's effectiveness. "The testing is
a constant reminder for the addict," Roper said. "We were testing twice a
week in Phase One of the program, and the positive rate was 3%. Testing
once a week, the positive testing was 6%."

Another uncertainty is how Proposition 36, which goes into effect July 1,
will impact the drug court. Regardless, the drug court has proven that it
is effective and deserves to continue.

Admittedly, the choices are difficult for Tulare County officials, but to
see a successful program die would be a huge loss in their efforts to mete
out justice, assist drug offenders and cut crime.