Keeping court funding alive

Good judgment:

Drug court officials and advocates will be looking for ways to keep the money flowing so that the services these courts provide will not be so vulnerable to state budget vagaries.

This year, for the second time in its relatively young life, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court was threatened with a major funding cut from Richmond.

A final version of the budget restored the state’s share — $182,000, amounting to 40 percent — of the court’s annual budget. (The rest comes from the two localities.)

But the funding reprieve was achieved only after struggle and heartburn.

Are drug court staff and supporters doomed to repeat this scenario year after year? That’s an inefficient use of their resources, economic, intellectual and emotional. Attention is much better focused on serving the community rather than fighting for survival.

And drug courts do serve the community.

It costs about $4,000 to send an offender through the drug court program, versus approximately $20,000 annually to incarcerate him. That saves taxpayer money in the long run.

Additionally, drug court offenders contribute to the community by continuing to work and make a living for themselves. 

Drug courts are an effective means of rehabilitation. Those chosen for the program undergo close supervision and drug testing, with the potential reward of having their sentences reduced or their cases dismissed.

Some say drug court requirements are even tougher than serving time.

Deflecting energy away from these efforts during each budget session is wasteful.

So the local drug court board of directors and the statewide Virginia Drug Court Association are looking at ways to smooth this rough road.

One strategy would be to better educate the General Assembly and the public about the efficacy of drug courts, so that supporters don’t have to ride into battle at the last moment during each year’s budget session.

The hope is that if legislators, and those who elect them, grasp the good that drug courts do, lawmakers will be less likely to approve massive funding cuts.

Another strategy is to seek more funding elsewhere, such as federal grants. Broadening the courts’ funding source is a good idea. With federal money in the mix, the courts may be less vulnerable to state cuts. A second source of income provides at least some measure of security.

In any case, taking a pro-active approach is useful. Instead of being threatened with a sudden loss of funding during each budget session, drug court supporters can work together before the legislative session to identify other approaches and secure other resources.

This should not lessen the state’s responsibility for primarily maintaining drug courts.

But it should make life easier for those who serve the courts, and are served by them.