DAs DIFFER IN SPENDING HABITS

Editor's note: This is the first part of a two-day series on how the
assets of drug traffickers are distributed and spent.

Each year, when Plymouth County District Attorney Michael Sullivan
knows how much money his office can expect to garner from the sale of
seized drug assets, he sets aside about 20 percent and invites
nonprofit groups to apply for those funds.

An advisory group of leaders from local nonprofits, police officers,
teachers, elected officials and social workers evaluates the grant
applications and recommends selections to Mr. Sullivan.

In neighboring Bristol County, District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr.
also awards grants to nonprofit groups, but he does not advertise the
availability of the funds.

Actually, he prefers not to, because he says his office staff does not
have the time and is not trained to administer such a program. "You
could say it's incumbent upon the fund-seekers to find out where the
funds are," Mr. Walsh said.

While state law sets general forfeiture spending parameters, the
guidelines allow individual prosecutors broad discretion.

While the district attorneys in Bristol and Plymouth counties spend
the bulk of their drug forfeiture dollars on the same sort of items --
prosecution and investigation of drug trafficking -- their
philosophies diverge in other areas, including community spending.

Both district attorneys spend far more of their drug forfeiture funds
on community programs than their colleagues across the state.

Mr. Sullivan allocated about 23 percent of his drug forfeiture funds
to community programs in 1997 and 1998, while Mr. Walsh spent about 12
percent of his drug money on such programs.

The next highest district attorney's office was in Franklin and
Hampshire counties, at 8 percent, according to a survey by The
Standard-Times.

Statewide, the nine district attorneys surveyed by the newspaper spent
an average of 6 percent of their drug forfeiture accounts on community
programs in 1997 and 1998.

State law says district attorneys may spend up to 10 percent of money
realized from the seizure of drug assets on "drug rehabilitation, drug
education and other anti-drug or neighborhood crime watch programs
which further law enforcement purposes."

The law does not mandate this spending, nor does it specify the means
of distributing the funds, which mean the district attorneys have
fairly wide discretion in the use of the money.

Mr. Walsh's office lists $34,529 in education, rehabilitation and
prevention spending in 1998 from drug forfeiture funds.

Of that, the bulk of the education portion was for training of
personnel, according to records provided by Mr. Walsh.

While he does not advertise the availability of the funds, he does
establish criteria for awarding grants, including that the agencies be
nonprofit and established. He said he is not interested in funding
"fly-by-night" requests.

"We evaluate it case by case," Mr. Walsh says.

A review of the items classified by the office in 1998 as spending on
education, rehabilitation and prevention includes seven programs that
received in excess of $1,000.

They were: printing invitations and hand-outs, and paying for
refreshments and food for a civil rights conference; printing
victim-witness brochures; Drug Abuse Resistance Education summer camp;
training for the officers in the district attorney's crime task force;
a $2,000 donation to the National College of District Attorneys; and
$2,500 to the New Bedford Council on Alcoholism.

The alcoholism council uses its funds for its detox transportation
unit. The college of district attorneys provides training and
education programs.

The list of smaller donations includes $250 to the New Bedford High
School Gridiron Club; $500 to Neighborhoods United and $250 to the
Cove Street Neighborhood Association; a $500 donation to the Whaling
City White Sox; $30 to YouthBuild; $500 for the Swansea Independent
Baseball League; $250 for Reflection; $500 to the New Bedford American
Legion; $30 to the Black Professionals Association; and a $100
donation to the New Bedford International Management Council.

A $325 donation to the Falmouth Hockey Boosters, outside of Bristol
County, was a one-time expenditure based on a misunderstanding, says
Mr. Walsh. When he pledged the funds, he thought the league was in
Fairhaven, he explained.

Several of the organizations receiving drug forfeiture donations also
received money from Mr. Walsh's campaign fund.

"I give more from my personal account to some things that are near and
dear to my heart," he said.

In addition to the forfeiture account, Mr. Walsh said he spends close
to $22,000 from his regular budget to pay part of the salaries of
employees working on juvenile services and community outreach.

He says he tries to focus his community spending on programs that keep
youngsters busy, such as sports leagues, rather than on treatment for
current addicts.

"Prevention is better than prosecution," he says.

When he took office, Mr. Walsh went after a backlog of forfeiture
cases, and since then has had a "take no prisoner" approach to forfeiture.

"We will go after anything, even 50 cents," he said, although the
average case is closer to $800. Every now and then, he adds, the
office will get big cases, such as one in Fall River last year
involving $106,000 in cash and four cars.

The drug money allows the office to spend money on unanticipated
expenses and other operating costs, with the exception of salaries,
which is forbidden by state law.

Mr. Walsh bristles at the suggestions that district attorneys treat
the money like a slush fund.

"That's so distressing to those of us involved in this," he said. "I
want the public to understand that we are fiscally responsible to taxpayers."

Much of the money goes back into drug enforcement and such expenses as
maintaining cars seized in drug raids or connected with crimes. Such
storage can run as high as $15 a day per car, Mr. Walsh said. He cited
as an example a murder case where his office had to store a car for
more than year.

In Plymouth County, Mr. Sullivan instituted his grant program in 1995
soon after taking office.

In previous years, the office was more dependent on the money to fill
funding gaps in prosecutions and investigations. But increased
legislative funding has freed up some of the drug money, Mr. Sullivan
said.

Once a year, usually in January, the office takes out newspaper
advertisements and contacts nonprofits to invite grant
submissions.

"Philosophically, we try to give the drug forfeiture money back to the
communities in a way that will have a long-term benefit," he said.

One of the office's first programs was teaming up with the YMCA and
Brockton Boys and Girls Club to open seven playgrounds and expand the
organized summer activities available to elementary and junior high
school students in the city.

Other projects have included counseling and outreach for drug-addicted
prostitutes in Brockton

The committee of outside evaluators ranks the applications based on
basic criteria, including the ability to monitor the progress of the
program and the number of people it might affect.

"We thought it would be fairer and more objective if we allowed the
community to evaluate these proposals," Mr. Sullivan explains. The
remaining funds are used for drug investigations, including money for
undercover operations, overtime, and equipment such as recording devices.

A statewide 1994 audit of federal and state drug forfeitures by state
Auditor Joseph DeNucci found what were described as some minor
problems in several district attorney's offices, including both
Bristol and Plymouth counties. Bristol County was cited for failing to
file required funding reports with the House and Senate ways and means
committees. Plymouth County was cited for having a $147,734 overdraft
in its forfeitures account.

A check with the Senate Ways and Means Committee showed Bristol County
had filed the required report last year, although the committee staff
refused to release the actual filing. Plymouth County also has
corrected the overdraft, Mr. Sullivan said.

Both district attorneys note their offices are audited by the state
auditor every few years. Those reviews include an assessment of drug
forfeiture money.

"The oversight is no different than our operating budget, to be
honest. We have to spend it consistent with state law and
regulations," Mr. Sullivan says.