Sustaining Drug Courts in Arizona and South Carolina: An Experience in Hodgepodge Budgeting*

Justice System Journal, 2004 by Douglas, James W, Hartley, Roger E

In contrast, state appropriations in South Carolina are sometimes directed to drug courts. By and large, drug courts are popular with the state legislature. In fiscal year 2002, the legislature found approximately $750,000 in excess money to reappropriate to drug courts. However, because the revenue came from a nonrecurring source, it did not provide the courts with long-term funding. Additionally, the budget crises that year forced cuts that substantially reduced the total appropriation. In an effort to give drug courts a more permanent source of state funds, the legislature increased the motions fees filed in state courts by $25 beginning in fiscal year 2003. The first $300,000 raised by the fee increase was earmarked to mediation and arbitration services, but the next $ 1 million was earmarked for drug courts. At the writing of this article, none of this money had come in yet, so drug courts did not know how much they would get, or even if any money at all would come in. One administrator labeled the fee increase as "an untrustworthy source of funding," believing it to be more a political maneuver by the legislature than a substantive effort to fund drug courts. As a result, most drug courts in South Carolina still lack stable and reliable revenues from the state. One court, however, through vigorous lobbying, was able to get a proviso written into the budget for its operations. A proviso, in essence, is a permanent line item (although it does not grow with inflation). According to one court official, a powerful legislator pushed for the proviso because he wanted a drug court in his district.

County Funding Sources. Four types of funding sources came from county governments. First, eleven of the drug courts under examination had at least some money appropriated to them directly from their county governments. This was generally done to provide matching funds for federal and state grants. This money fluctuated as economic conditions changed. In fact, several courts have recently had their county appropriations cut or eliminated due to fiscal problems. second, in-kind contributions of personnel and tangible items (such as office space, supplies, utilities, etc.) were provided to drug courts by other county agencies. Most of Arizona's drug court judges, for example, were at least partially reassigned from other court duties. In-kind contributions were particularly popular in Arizona, as most courts reported receiving them. Third, county probation departments and public defenders offices in a couple of Arizona counties transferred some of their funding directly to their local drug courts. Finally, probation fees in three Arizona counties were earmarked to drug courts.

Participation Fees. Drug courts used participation fees to cover costs and give participants a vested interest in their treatment. In some cases participants paid a weekly fee, ranging from $10 to $30. In others, lump-sum payments ranging from $130 to $1,025 were made. One county required all potential participants to pay an application fee. Another required that treatment be paid for by either Medicaid, disability, or private insurance. Participants who did not qualify for any of these could opt to be put on a payment plan to pay off the cost of their treatment. Participation fees were much more popular in South Carolina, where all but one of the courts required some sort of participation payment.