PRINT ADS

Crime-prevention programs like DARE could take a hit in funding with a change in how citations can be paid.

A new law, 2007 Wisconsin Act 84, became effective March 27 and repeals the ability of court judges to impose a contribution from a defendant or offer a contribution to a crime-prevention organization as an alternative to sentencing or judgment.

Popular programs like Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education, or DARE, could be among those that suffer the most.

In a letter to municipal court judges, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated, “Although the organizations that receive the funds are often valuable to the community, this funding mechanism creates the potential for inappropriate prosecutorial charging decisions, the appearance of fundraising or favoritism by the judges and a general perception by the public that favorable outcomes in criminal cases can be bought by defendants who can afford them.”

Some DARE programs have already seen a decline in the amount of money generated from such contributions. For example, Onalaska DARE received $10,750 in such payments in 2006, but, in 2007, the amount received was $5,050.

According to Pam Sharp, administrative manager for the Onalaska police department, the forfeitures paid to DARE in Onalaska were a significant part of the revenue sources. In addition to those funds, the city has community fundraisers and applies for grants as other sources of revenue.

Although she declined to be specific on its DARE budget because no proposals have been presented to the city finance committee or city council, Sharp said, “Right now, because of (the new law), we won’t get those contributions. It has the potential to be a major blow to the program. We’ll have to be creative and put alternative proposals before the finance committee and city council.”

What happens in the future, Sharp said, depends upon how creative the program and the city can be in coming up with alternative funds.

“It’s a very popular program and there is a lot of interest in wanting to keep it going. The city seems to care about such education and I’m confident we can keep the program going.”

The DARE program for municipalities outside Onalaska and La Crosse — such as West Salem, Bangor and Holmen — are operated through the La Crosse County Sheriff’s Department. Captain Mike Horstmann said the circuit courts had stopped the contributions around 2004-05, so there was minimal impact on the county-wide program from the new law.

“We kind of lost out on those contributions,” Horstmann said. “They helped fund things like textbooks. But we have the Chili Cook-off and other fundraisers and small individual donations.”

The DARE program with the county is financed through taxpayer dollars allocated to the sheriff’s department’s budget. The only DARE expense paid through the county budget is the salary of one DARE officer. Horstmann said supplies are minimal. Funds needed for textbooks and other materials are obtained through major fundraisers such as the annual GREAT/DARE Chili Cook-off.

In another bite out of municipal funds, a new state law also requires counties to send the state a greater portion of its receipts from fines collected as part of the driver improvement surcharge. Counties had been able to keep 61.5 percent of the surcharge while sending the remaining 38.5 percent to the state department of administration. The new law, 2007 Wisconsin Act 111, requires counties to increase their transfer of state payments from 38.5 percent to 40 percent.

Act 111 also increases the amount of the driver improvement surcharge on fines for a second offense of driving with a prohibited alcohol content more than .08 but less than .1. The surcharge increases from $355 to $365 and is in addition to the municipal fine or forfeiture plus costs, fees and other surcharges imposed.

Speaking of fines and forfeitures, an attempt by Joint Municipal Court Judge John Brinkman to make a uniform schedule of fines for under-age drinking for all the municipalities was rejected by representatives of Holmen, Bangor and West Salem.

Brinkman told the joint municipal court representatives that having different sets of fines creates problems in the court room. When defendants appear in the courtroom with all the other offenders of different municipalities charged with underage drinking, they hear a different fine for the same offense because the offender was in a different municipality. One municipality might require loss of license while another might not.

“It’s an issue of fairness as it is being issued from one conviction to another,” Brinkman said. “It’s an area where we could get some type of consensus. I don’t really care what the consensus is, it just makes sense to have one set of (fines).”

Bangor Police Chief Scott Alo objected.

“When we started this joint municipal court, it was under the idea we would maintain our autonomy and determine what we would prosecute and what we would fine. I’m not in favor of being lumped together... I don’t think kids are going to plan their parties around where it is cheaper (if they get caught).”