DRUG COURT WILL START ACCEPTING DWI CASES

DURHAM -- Still struggling after two years to reach a participation level
that will prevent it from losing state funding, Durham's drug court is
adopting a proposal to open its doors to defendants who drink and drive.

"We're not going to become a DWI court," Judge Richard G. Chaney said this
week. "But we will not exclude people on that basis either."

Drug court imposes strict treatment requirements on participants coupled
with frequent urine screenings and other tests to ensure that clients
remain clean and sober.

It was designed to handle 30 criminal defendants, but after two years still
has only 21. Although the number has been steadily rising and is up from 11
in July 2000, it isn't climbing nearly fast enough, some officials believe.

As a result, annual funding for the program was cut from $150,000 in its
first year of operation to a current level of $100,000. Officials hope
adding DWI clients will help boost participation.

So far, drug court has taken only about four alcohol-dependent clients on
an experimental basis. The first graduation of a person with an alcohol
problem occurred Friday.

Now, others with drinking problems will be routinely accepted when judges
refer them, Chaney said. First-time DWI offenders will not be eligible, nor
will those with habitual DWI arrests, he said.

Instead, the program will be open to people who, for example, commit a
third drinking-and-driving offense and thus face a minimum jail term of 30
days, Chaney said. If such people complete the rigorous regimen of drug
court, their sentence will be no more than the minimum, Chaney said. If
they don't, they will be locked up longer.

Some court officials have said it isn't a good idea to mix drug addicts and
alcohol-dependent people in the same program, since treatment methods are
different.

But Chaney, the presiding judge for drug court, disagrees.

"The basic issue is addiction," he said. "The approach is not much
different, in my opinion, whether it's drugs or alcohol. The mentality of
the addiction is similar. These people just have to learn new ways to think
and enjoy themselves."

District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr. said he thinks accepting DWI clients in
drug court is a good idea as long as charges are not reduced.

"I have always taken a tough stand on DWI cases," he said. "I'm going to
continue to do that."

District Judge Craig Brown said he's delighted the court is opening to DWI
clients.

"It will provide another avenue of intensive treatment and oversight for
people with addictions," he said. "There are some differences in treatment
for people with drug and alcohol problems. All addictions are not created
equal. But I don't think they are so broadly different that they can't be
in the same court."

Brown said it would be ideal if Durham could have a stand-alone DWI
treatment court in addition to drug court. But such an ambitious
undertaking is impossible this fiscal year and next because of budgetary
constraints, he added. A combined drug and alcohol treatment court is the
next-best thing, he said.

Randy Monchick, drug-treatment court administrator for the state, said by
telephone from Raleigh that he has always encouraged local programs to
accept "DWI people who are chemically dependent."

"I am very interested in this being one of the target populations," he said.

Even the national leaders of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are in favor of
such intervention for drinking drivers, Monchick said.

Meanwhile, Monchick and other officials said Durham's drug court is
struggling to overcome a lower-than-expected level of participation.

Officials said the situation will improve only if various agencies and
individuals - such as the district attorney, public defender and judges -
begin referring more people to drug court.

"We had projected there would be no referral problems," said Monchick. "But
that has not been the case. The Durham court is still struggling. It says
nothing negative about the program. It is a solid program. It is really
maturing. But they just aren't getting referrals. They should have a ton of
participants."

Lao Rubert, director of the Durham-based Carolina Justice Policy Center,
said drug court "requires a lot of interaction among agencies to identify
people who need to be there. I don't think Durham County has gotten to the
correct level of interaction yet. Other counties have managed to do it. The
same issues exist everywhere. Why can't we do it?"