One of the Legislature's More Baffling Recent Decisions

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The 2011-2012 General Assembly made a host of troubling decisions in the past two years on everything from education to environmental policy.

In most cases, lawmakers offered at least some claims or evidence or some ideology to support their actions, however misleading or misguided they were.

But a few decisions were simply baffling regardless of your political philosophy, policy views, or partisan leanings. One of them was the legislative leaders' insistence on ending all funding for the state's drug treatment courts.

The courts are one of the state's success stories. They provide a tough but effective treatment option for drug offenders that allows them to stay out of prison, stay with their families, and often pay restitution to their victims, all while turning their lives around.

It not only helps the offender, but it also saves the state big money. The program costs a few thousand dollars for each participant, roughly a tenth of the almost $30,000 year it costs to keep them behind bars.

Numerous studies show the program works. One found that 75 percent of the graduates of drug court were arrest-free two years after finishing the program.

It is one of a handful of programs supported by both prosecutors and advocates for alternatives to incarceration. In fact, it's hard to find anyone who thinks the drug courts are a bad idea.

But that didn't stop budget writers in 2011 from ending state support for the operations of the program. Then lawmakers came back this summer and abolished state funding for the treatment services that the program provides.

The rationale for this year's cuts was that the operations funding had been cut the year before. That doesn't make any sense. They could have restored it instead, of course - it was only a few million dollars in a $20 billion budget - but they decided to end the funding entirely.

No legislator publicly questioned the drug court's effectiveness or the long-term savings it could provide, not to mention giving people the chance to turn their lives around.

A few lawmakers did complain that not every county had a drug court, which was true.

They were operating in less than half the state's 100 counties, though plans were under way to expand when more funding became available. There doesn't seem to be much logic in eliminating a highly successful program that saves money and lives because it isn't in place everywhere.

Republicans and Democrats across the country support drug courts, so it's not really a partisan issue. Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey recently began requiring that nonviolent drug offenders enter treatment programs instead of prison, saying drug addiction is an illness that needs to be treated.

Supporting drug treatment courts also doesn't mean you are soft on crime. District attorneys and law enforcement officials are some of the strongest proponents of the program.

A couple of years ago the Wilmington Star-News reported on the graduation ceremony of seven people who had completed the Brunswick County drug court program. They included a woman who had been addicted to heroin since she was 17.

She was arrested in 2009 and entered the drug treatment program the following summer and graduated drug free while managing to keep her job and maintain her relationship with her family. That woman would have been sent to prison if the drug court hadn't existed.

Drug offenders from now on are not likely to have that second chance because of the decisions made by state lawmakers in the last two years. And the state will spend $30,000 to keep the offenders locked up instead.

Somebody needs to explain how that makes any sense.

Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

More like this story

nothingspecial 9 months ago

Allow me one clarification - the Legislature made budget courts to many state agencies including the office of Courts. IT IS THE OFFICE OF COURTS that made the decision to make their cuts to programs you cite here, as they did when Governor Easley made cuts to the Office of Courts during his term. Am I wrong?

There is loud wailing across the country from states that are having to cut programs because with the financial downturn there simply isn't enough revenue to responsibly operate state and local governments without making comparable cuts. It seems appropriate to me that as much as possible the legislature allow the government offices such as the Office of Courts to make their own decision on where best to make painful cuts. The whole argument is not that people don't agree that programs being cut are not useful or helpful but that with a limited amount of money something has to give somewhere.

dustyrhoades 9 months ago

If it was only about lack of resources, then they'd keep things like drug courts and Sentencing Service, which provided lower cost alternatives to incarceration. However, the politicians know that these aren't popular with a public who loves to scream "lock 'em up!" but hates to spend the money to do it.So faced with the expensive but more politically popular path versus the more cost-effective but politically iffy one, they'll choose the path of least political resistance and more spending.

Bentpan 9 months ago

So as usual Mr. Fitzsimon tells only part of the truth in his never ending quest to bash conservatives and as usual The Pilot publishes those half-truths with no attempt at editing (as in fact checking) other businesses have quality control why don't you? Why not start a section called "fact or fiction, you decide", that is where so many of these columns and editorials belong anyway, that way people will know what they're probably reading is slanted, part or wholy fiction, one sided ETC.

Hembloche 9 months ago

It actually took me all of 2 minutes to research and find that it was indeed the general assembly who cut the funding and not the office of the courts. They eliminated all $2,000,000.00 from the state budget and left it to individual counties to try to fund. Way to jump all over someone based off a comment following a story though. Makes ya feel good, huh?

Hembloche 9 months ago

It's a tough one boscoe. Personally, I'm for legalizing and taxing the hell out of it. People are gonna do drugs whether they're legal or not, might as well make some money, rather than spending the ridiculous amounts we do on the "war on drugs".

clarabelle 9 months ago

"There is only so much we can do for these addicted offenders, just like cigarettes, a person has to be responsible for quitting on their own, the warning has been made clear, thats about all we can do, or afford. "

EXACTLY!

btw - "cigarettes have been estimated to have caused (take a deep breath - cough if you smoke) a BILLION (no not a million) deaths this century!" So - it's not all about the concern for your health :)

clarabelle 9 months ago

"Hembloche - It actually took me all of 2 minutes to research and find that it was indeed the general assembly who cut the funding and not the office of the courts."

Why do you think his name is "nothingspecial"............

I am certain he won't be around for a few days now........... thank you :)

http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2012/08/08/whos-against-funding-successful-drug-treatment/

nothingspecial 9 months ago

Thanks for the correction, Hemobloche.

If drugs are legalized and taxed heavily what will be the penalty and law enforcement for folks who who don't want to pay that cost, and to those engaged in the potentially huge business that continues to provide cheaper illegally sold drugs? Just seeking enlightenment.