"Albemarle Sheriff J.E. “Chip” Harding is at the forefront of a growing number of Charlottesville-area residents urging the General Assembly to reject a House of Delegates budget amendment that would wipe out funding for Virginia’s drug courts.

Harding, a former longtime city narcotics investigator, is writing state legislators to tell them about the city-county drug court’s decade long record of successes in helping offenders overcome addictions and turn away from lives of crime.

“Our drug court appears to save taxpayers money,” the Republican elected sheriff has told senators and delegates involved in budget negotiations over whether to adopt the House amendment stripping more than $5.9 million in continued funding for 14 drug courts, a move now opposed by the Virginia Senate.

Harding said the intensive treatment program requires individuals to be drug free for 12 months prior to graduation and “is more demanding of a user than simply going to jail and sitting around watching television until they are released with their addictions intact.”

Drug courts boast a low rate of re-offenders - only 17.7 percent compared with at least 50 percent who are going to jail or prison without the treatment and get arrested again following their release, said Jeff Gould, administrator of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Treatment Court.

Several senators said Wednesday that they would insist on saving the drug courts and rejecting the House cuts to 49 staff positions in 14 drug courts around the state.

“I think most of us on our side are very supportive,” said Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Reston, one of six Senate budget negotiators, all of whom have heard from Harding.

“All the studies show drug courts are effective,” Howell said. “It works, so I don’t see why you would defund them.”

Sen. R. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania County, said the Senate “has upheld the funding for drug court since its inception. It’s a very positive approach to breaking the cycle of drug use and crime, and we think it’s an important component of the state budget. We’ll fight for it.”

Various delegates defended the House position to strip the funding in tight budget times.

“The position we took is that half of them have been funded and half of them weren’t funded [by the state] - that that wasn’t consistent so we chose to fund none of them,” said Del. Clarke N. Hogan, R-South Boston, a House budget negotiator.

“It’s one of the cuts we had to make,” Hogan said. “Fourteen were making it with no funds, then the other 14 could make it with no funds. It’s a matter for the [budget] conference.”

Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle County and a longtime critic of drug courts, said the programs have engaged in what he termed “mission creep” by expanding beyond just handling individuals charged with drug crimes to other property crimes committed by drug-addicted individuals.

“Presumably there will be some sort of compromise between the two positions” of the Senate and House for and against the funding, Bell said.

Gould said the courts get their funding from federal, state and local sources, with $2,190 of the program’s $6,000 annual cost per individual coming from the state.

“The state contribution is roughly 61 percent of our annual budget,” or about $182,500 a year for the local drug court, Gould said." (Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, February 28, 2008)