“A new study says that drug treatment courts, which state legislators cut funding for in the recent budget, are effective at reducing crime and drug use.

Drug courts also saved an average of nearly $5,700 per participant, resulting in a net benefit of $2 for every $1 spent, according to the study released Tuesday by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. The Center for Court Innovation in New York and RTI International in the Research Triangle Park assisted with the study.

This year, North Carolina legislators cut $2 million in funding for drug treatment courts across the state…”

>> Continue reading “Study: Drug courts effective in reducing” at News-Record.com.

I’ve seen first-hand the effectiveness of Guilford County’s drug court. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to cut programs that save taxpayer dollars and change lives.

Our county had a good treatment center which offered detox, outpatient, and inpatient services. The center stayed full, with a waiting list, from the day it opened, but still, it was good treatment, and people got help there. But there were issues with Bridgeway, the operator contracted to provide services, and the state suspended admissions in August. The county is transitioning to a new provider, DayMark, but new patients won’t be admitted until at least late November. So that’s four months with no county substance abuse treatment.

Uninsured/under-insured Guilford County residents in need of substance abuse treatment can go to ARCA in Winston, RTS in Burlington or ADATC in Butner for detox and crisis stabilization. But those services are limited to 14 days. While that’s helpful in some cases, in many cases, it’s like sticking a bandaid on a seriously injured car crash victim and dumping them back into the middle of the interstate. Those in recovery from cocaine addiction, for example, often need significantly more residential treatment. They need to be in a safe, structured environment while their brains begin to heal. And at just 14 days’ clean time, a crack addict’s brain looks like someone turned the lights out.

Much is said about “community-based treatment,” which means non-residential (not in a facility), but in reality, it sounds a lot better than it often works. “Best practices” and “client-centered therapy” are also important parts of good treatment. But the substance abuse treatment available locally to alcoholics and addicts who don’t have good health insurance coverage doesn’t always measure up to those terms.

I’m a realist. I know that the biggest reason why we don’t have the needed treatment is because there’s not enough money to pay for it. Local and state treatment programs are paid for primarily with tax dollars. There’s always been a shortage of treatment beds and treatment options. And the current economy has no doubt worsened the situation. But I also know the cost of addiction that most taxpayers don’t see or think about. It’s “pay me now or pay me later.” When treatment-ready alcoholics and addicts can’t get the help they need, and they continue in their addictions, taxpayers still end up paying for it.

People who can’t access needed treatment services often continue to cycle through emergency rooms (the most expensive form of healthcare) and detox programs. That costs taxpayers money. Active alcoholics and addicts who are on disability may use government benefits, such as SSDI or SSI checks, food stamps or utility vouchers to buy alcohol and drugs. Taxpayers pay for that. Police officers, jailers and judges can tell you about the correlation between addiction and crime. Again, taxpayers pay.

The cost of the destruction of lives — both the addicts’ and their friends and families — cannot be measured.  Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families lose time from work dealing with crises. Alcoholics, addicts, and their friends and families deal with mental and physical health issues — some which contribute to the alcoholism and addiction, and some resulting from it. Families break up and relationships end because of alcoholism and addiction. Single-parent families are at a greater risk of poverty and are more likely to receive government assistance. All of this adds up to more taxpayers dollars.

There’s much stigma, misinformation and mythology attached to alcoholism and addiction. This probably contributes to the lack of advocacy for increasing treatment options. But if we were to really look at the bottom line, we’d see that “detox and done” isn’t really serving anyone.

It’s easy to appeal to compassion and make an emotional case for providing treatment for alcoholics and addicts who are ready to do the next thing. But the pragmatic case is just as compelling, if not more so. Currently, adequate treatment is not available because our community can’t afford to provide it. But the truth is that taxpayers are already paying (and likely paying more) for not providing adequate treatment services, which raises the obvious question: Can we really afford not to provide it?

# # # # #

RUCO is under attack by opponents and now is the time that those who support RUCO speak up and let all Council members, not just your district Council person, know how you feel.

The focus of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is the preservation and improvements of our neighborhoods in terms of quality of life, property values and safety. As we all know, sub-standard housing undermines surrounding property values — even one substandard property can undermine the property values of an entire neighborhood. Also, we know that sub-standard properties invite crime into our communities.

Other organizations that are partnering in support of the pro-active aspects of RUCO, such as the Greensboro Housing Coalition and the Human Relations Commission, are focused on the human rights issues of improving sub-standard rental properties, in that renters have a right to live in safe housing and that many of them won’t complain about substandard housing out of fear of retaliation from their landlords.

RUCO is a sucessful program

• Since RUCO was implemented, known sub-standard housing in Greensboro has been reduced from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010;
• Since RUCO was implemented, complaints about sub-standard housing have been decreased 77%;
• Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been reduced by 22%.
• Since RUCO was implemented, inspections staff have been more successful in getting deteriorated housing to the Minimum Housing Commission more quickly and the number to go has steadily increased from 17 in 2003 to 105 in 2010.

RUCO is reasonable

• Once inspected and a certificate is issued, the RUCO is good for the life of the property unless there is a complaint on the property or violations are found during the sampling inspections and not repaired within the prescribed time frame.
• The time frame in which a violation must be repaired is 45 days from the written notice of the violation and can be extended as long as in the judgment of the inspector, progress is being on the repairs.
• The sampling inspection process applies only to a random 2% of rental properties.
• Rental properties that have not yet been inspected that come on the rental market are required to pass inspection and be issued a RUCO before they can be rented.

Opponents of RUCO plan to propose an elimination of the pro-active portions of RUCO, and as they couch it: “target problem properties”. Their proposal will in effect eliminate RUCO. We agree that problem properties should be targeted. However, the Housing Code already provides the means to address the obvious problem properties and the City staff have already done 100% exterior inspections at least once. Moreover, where the staff find indications of violations from the external inspections, they are pursuing internal inspections. However, staff will tell you that you can not know what violations may be present inside a residence solely from an external inspection. It is doubtful that you will see electrical problems from the exterior; or rotting floors, or problems with the heating or air conditioning, etc. The question is: do you want to wait until the problems are apparent in the exterior where they negatively impact your entire community? That’s what the opponents of RUCO are proposing we do.

TAKE ACTION
Click here to send one email all City Council members.
Click here for the City Council directory which provides their home addresses and phone numbers.
Click here to write a letter to the editor at the News and Record.

The Greensboro Housing Coalition also supports keeping RUCO intact and they state the following reasons:

1. RUCO has achieved tremendous improvement in housing safety for problem properties, reducing substandard housing from 1679 units in 2003 to 705 in 2010.
2. Substandard housing conditions impact health; health care and disability costs for NC children hurt by unsafe housing conditions totaled $108,000,000 in 2007.
3. Proactive inspections prevent conditions from sliding below standard, beyond the focus on problem properties. Analogy: waiting for conditions to become big enough problems for people to complain (or inspectors to see from the street) is like waiting for restaurant kitchens to get so dirty that people see rats before the Health Dept sanitarian comes. Wouldn’t you rather have proactive inspections so that restaurants keep kitchens sanitary all the time and that rental properties stay at or above minimum standards?

The Neighborhood Congress and the Greensboro Housing Coalition are, however, interested in improving the administration of the inspections programs and we have offered to assist City management and staff in identifying areas that need improvement and finding procedural and other solutions. However, such administrative improvements do not require that we remove the certification requirements within RUCO.

Three of the Congress participants who are willing to assist you with your questions about RUCO and/or drafting your comments are: Laura Jackson, Michael Pendergraft, and David Wharton.

Follow-up info:

What are the proactive components of RUCO?

There are basically 2 such components:

1. RUCO currently calls for all properties that are newly placed on the rental market to be inspected and certified before they can be rented. This does not apply to new construction rentals or rentals that go through major renovations, because new construction and major renovations have to be inspected anyway and RUCO certification is therefore assumed.
2. RUCO also currently requires that City staff inspect a random 2% sampling of all rental properties – regardless of whether they have previously received a RUCO certification. However, once a property has received a RUCO, it is good for the life of the property unless the property falls into the 2% sampling or the resident of the property files a complaint.

Written by Donna Newton, Greensboro Neighborhood Congress