New funds help avoid losses at drug court.

Byline: Bill Bishop The Register-Guard

Just in the nick of time, Lane County Drug Court got a $147,000 state grant last week.

On paper, the money provides for an expansion. In fact, it prevents another cutback, Court Administrator Tali McKay says.

The drug court, which aims to reduce crime by treating addicted offenders who volunteer for help, has been there before.

In early 2003, the court had money to treat 300 people at a time. When the state cut addiction treatment from the Oregon Health Plan for low-income residents, the local court suddenly shrank to 80 clients, McKay says.

It now has about 52 slots, but has stretched the money to serve 110 clients at a time with fewer services. Last year, the court served 400 people.

There is no shortage of need for drug courts, which have been shown in several studies to be a cost-effective approach to crime prevention. One year after completing Lane County's drug court program, only 6 percent of court clients have been charged with a new crime, according to court data. In 13 Oregon counties, there are 21 adult drug courts, 10 for juveniles and three for families.

In Lane County, the court costs about $300 per client a month, which covers such things as group and individual counseling, mental health evaluations and drug testing. The services are provided under contract between the county and Emergence, a nonprofit treatment agency. Virtually all of the court's $224,000 annual budget goes to treatment.

"Funding for treatment is what limits our capacity," McKay says. "We adjust it all the time. We make it work because we have a really good team; the DA, the public defender, the treatment provider."

Beneath the surface, the court is tossed by the same financial currents that are swamping some critical elements of Lane County's public safety system, Chief Deputy Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner says.

For example, addicts who do low-level property crimes are just saying no to drug court, Gardner says. With Lane County's increasingly overcrowded jail, offenders know they'll get out of jail fast if they take the traditional route of pleading guilty and getting a jail sentence, Gardner says.

With the slashed budget for prosecuting minor crimes, a lot of addict/offenders don't get prosecuted at all or have their crimes written up as violations - making them ineligible for drug court, he said.

There was a brief period, soon after the prosecution cutbacks, when there weren't enough eligible offenders volunteering for the available space in drug court, Gardner said.

That trend didn't last for long.

These days, the court is admitting higher-risk addicted offenders - a move Gardner calls "smart and progressive" because research shows that resources are best directed at high-risk offenders. Correcting one high-risk repeat offender has more positive impact on the crime rate than treating several offenders at lower risk of repeating their crimes.

However, high-risk offenders generally require more time to succeed in the program and cost more, challenging court managers to readjust budgets and find additional resources, McKay notes.

"It's hard for us to motivate high-risk offenders if we can't put them in jail," McKay says. "When something happens in one part of the system, it affects us all. We're all connected."