TAFT: STUDY SHOWS DRUG COURTS SUCCESSFUL, TREATMENT INITIATIVE UNNEEDED

COLUMBUS - A state-commissioned study shows that drug courts are a success
and a major reason why voters should reject a ballot issue to require
treatment for nonviolent first and second-time drug offenders, Gov. Bob
Taft said yesterday.

"With our drug courts, we're breaking the cycle of substance abuse and
crime and we need to stay the course," he said.

Over the past three years, the number of drugs courts in Ohio increased
from 21 to 50, including common pleas courts in Lucas, Huron, Erie, and
Allen counties, and Norwalk Municipal Court.

Instead of sentencing offenders to prison, drug court judges oversee a
program that includes treatment of drug users and regular meetings with a
probation officer and the judge. If offenders don't follow through, they
can be sent to prison.

State officials didn't release the study yesterday, saying it's being
edited and will be available next week. Instead, the governor read a
summary of its findings.

Mr. Taft said the study found that 68 percent of 1,500 offenders in drug
courts in four counties including Erie, and three municipal courts were not
arrested again within two years - a 19 percent reduction compared to
similar offenders not sent to a drug court.

But Ed Orlett, director of the Ohio Campaign for Drug Policies, said the
drug court system doesn't reach enough offenders and is unlikely to expand
if funding is tied to the economy's health.

"Drug courts are a fine, if small, system for providing treatment to some
drug offenders. But three out of four drug possession offenders in Ohio
don' t even have the option, and many go to jail instead. Our initiative
would make every court in Ohio a drug court, pay for treatment, and save
money overall," Mr. Orlett said.

The proposed ballot issue, which likely will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot,
would require the state to boost spending by $38 million on treatment of
nonviolent drug offenders.

About 18 months ago, the state Office of Criminal Justice Services decided
to study whether drug courts are working. The project did not anticipate
the drug treatment ballot issue, said agency spokeswoman Stephanie McCarty.

The state used $130,000 in federal funds to hire the University of
Cincinnati to examine whether offenders sent to drug courts were less
likely to be arrested again, and provided $75,000 in federal funds to Ohio
State University to interview drug court employees.

Mr. Taft said if voters amend the state Constitution to include the drug
treatment initiative, judges would lose the power to require urine analysis
of offenders to determine if they're remaining "drug-free."

Mr. Orlett challenged Mr. Taft's statement.

Eligible drug offenders would be examined by a treatment worker, who would
determine what kind of program is needed, and that could include periodic
urine testing, Mr. Orlett said.