DAdraws attention to court issues

By Kevin O’Brien

Until more oversight and reform is applied to Marathon County’s drug treatment court, District Attorney Theresa Wetzsteon said last week that her office will not be participating in the diversion program as she finishes out her term.

“I have made a decision as the district attorney that I will not go back into drug court, and I made that decision because it was clear to me that things are not going to change,” she said.

Wetzsteon also expressed deep frustrations about the county’s OWI court (operating while intoxicated), which currently has only two participants enrolled due to restrictions put in place by the state back in 2020. She questioned how the county board could continue to fund a program that serves such a limited population.

“I know it hasn’t been a priority because I’ve been asking for four and a half years for OWI court to be revamped, and it hasn’t,” she said.

The DA presented a starkly different picture of the county’s drug and alcohol treatment courts than the one portrayed by Judge Suzanne O’Neill, who spoke to the committee about the benefits of drug and OWI courts for those who complete the programs.

Judge O’Neill presented data to the committee showing that completion rates for

COURTS/

Theresa Wetzsteon Continued from page 1

participants in Marathon County’s drug and OWI courts are higher than similar state-run programs, and the percentage of re-arrests is lower for those who have completed the county’s OWI court.

“I think that it does indicate that our treatment courts are successful and worthy of continued support,” she said.

However, Judge O’Neill also acknowledged that the data she presented to the committee was put together “somewhat hastily,” and she wouldn’t say the information was “100 percent accurate,” but she still believes they “accurately reflect the success of our programs.”

As a drug court judge herself, O’Neill said she receives a lot positive comments from people in the community about the treatment programs, including from those in the medical community who have told her that treating substance abuse as a health problem rather than a criminal justice issue is much more effective.

Judge O’Neill said she knows of many successful drug court participants who have gone from barely being able to function in society to living productive lives with stable jobs, reconciling with their families and staying out of jail.

“When you compare simple incarceration with treatment, the results of treatment are always going to be better,” she said.

A simmering issue

The debate over the effectiveness of Marathon County’s treatment courts had been going on for quite some time prior to last week’s meeting.

In January, DA Wetzsteon told the Public Services Committee that she had serious reservations about continuing to participate in the treatment programs after what she called a “breakdown” in the process for deciding which defendants are eligible. She pointed to a case in which a defendant under indictment for drug crimes was considered for the program, and the drug court team only narrowly voted 5-4 to reject him.

Both Wetzsteon and O’Neill have said that drug court is meant for relatively low-level offenders who have chronic substance abuse issues, and not for those who commit more serious crimes. However, questions have been raised about those who continue to be arrested for further criminal activity after completing the program.

Supervisor Jason Wilhelm, who requested the update on the treatment courts, said he has talked to several people involved with substance abuse issues, including those at the Marathon County Jail, and several of them told him the drug court isn’t working.

“The last thing we want to do is keep giving somebody chance after chance after chance, because if there’s no consequence, they’re going to keep going through it and not going to follow through,” he said.

Judge O’Neill, however, said offenders do face consequences for violating the rules of the program and can be kicked out. She said drug court requirements are much more rigorous than traditional probation, as participants are required to see their case manager and treatment provider every week, attend at least three AA or NA meetings a week and complete 20 hours of community service or paid employment every week. They are also subject to regular drug tests.

“If you’re given the opportunity of probation or drug court, you’re insane if you don’t just take probation unless you really want treatment,” she said. “With probation, you’re going to see your agent at most once every other week and you’re going to have to do a few things a month.”

Still, she acknowledged that participants are given leeway when they relapse, which she said is an expected part of the recovery process according to treatment experts she’s talked to.

“I will admit they get several chances,” she said. “Do they get chances if they’re out selling drugs? No. Do they get chances if they just relapse and they’re using drugs? Yes.”

Supervisor Deb Hoppa, however, challenged the notion that relapses are inevitable, and said newly recovering addicts should be attending AA or NA on a daily basis and working with a sponsor to help them stay sober.

“A relapse is not part of sobriety. I know hundreds of people who have never relapsed and have been sober a very, very long time,” she said. “It’s a decision they make.”

Unanswered questions

When expressing her frustrations, Wetzsteon questioned why comprehensive and upto- date data on the treatment programs was not more readily available for county supervisors so they can determine how effective the programs actually are.

The DA said treatment courts are supposed to operate on “evidence-based practices” that are proven to be effective through measurable outcomes, such as reduced recidivism and improved public safety. She questioned whether the data presented to the committee was properly vetted.

“Why are we throwing numbers together?” she said. “Why aren’t these numbers calculated as we go along to ensure that what we’re doing is enhancing public safety?”

Wetzsteon said the data should reflect the actions of those who are kicked out of a treatment program and go on to reoffend, and not just those who completed a program. She also noted that those who are eligible for drug court are facing time in prison, where they would also be required to participate in substance abuse programs while incarcerated. Those in treatment court programs, however, are still out in the community and pose a threat to public safety if they re-offend, she said.

“Our office is not anti-treatment court,” she said. “We were involved in the inception of that court. We are responsible for the public safety voice in that court.”

When it comes to the OWI court, which has been in place since 2009, Wetzsteon said repeat drunk drivers with fifth or sixth offenses are no longer eligible for the program after a state law change was passed in 2020. That leaves the program open to those with three or four offenses, significantly limiting the number of possible participants.

Judge O’Neill said there’s an ongoing discussion about how to redevelop the OWI court to focus on a different target group of offenders, but so far, the treatment court team members have been unable to reach a consensus on a way forward.

“We just can’t seem to get buy-in from everybody on one idea,” she said.

Supervisor Stacey Morache said there needs to be more transparency about how the OWI court funds are being spent, especially if there are only two participants enrolled. With the court being fully funded by local tax dollars, she said “that does not seem to be a good use of funds.”

Committee chairman Brent Jacobson agreed with Morache and said he would put the topic on future agendas for further discussion when more information becomes available.

“I make database decisions,” he said. “More data is always good.”

Suzanne O’Neill