Drug court's future unclear

This week's departure of Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews may mean a rockier road for Charleston County teens whose drug and alcohol problems have landed them in trouble with the law.

That's because Segars-Andrews has presided over the county's Juvenile Drug Court since its inception in 1997.

And while Probate Judge Irv Condon has agreed to continue working with the 35 youths now in the program, its long-term future is unclear.

Condon, who did not return messages from the newspaper this week, is expected to serve only on an interim basis; the court's ultimate survival could hinge on whomever lawmakers elect to fill Segars-Andrews' vacancy next year.

Segars-Andrews, whose term ended Thursday, would not comment publicly on her contentious bid to keep her job -- one scuttled after lawmakers found her unqualified because of her actions in a divorce case, even though other ethics experts found her handling of it within the law.

But she would talk about the Juvenile Drug Court she helped create and took under her wing.

"My only regret is that my problem is interfering with this program," she said.

It's not really a court but rather an intensive form of probation -- an alternative to prison for youths ages 13 to 18 who have pleaded guilty or been convicted of certain crimes.

The program requires the youths not only to get drug counseling but also to attend school, participate in sports or other positive peer groups, take frequent drug tests -- even hold a job.

The youths, their parents, school officials and counselors appear weekly before Segars-Andrews to provide an update on how they're doing.

"Every week, they're rewarded," she said, "or they're punished, whether it be a weekend in detention or doing a paper for me. It's parenting like we parent our children."

Segars-Andrews has formed relationships with many of the youths -- relationships she cannot form with other litigants appearing in Family Court. She has encouraged some by taking them out for lunch or providing other support.

"You know that expression, 'Wait until your father gets home?' I feel like I'm the father," she said. "Parents can use me to help keep their children in line."

While only about one in five of the youths graduate, the drug court has proved itself effective.

The Medical University of South Carolina studies how youths in the program perform compared with those given traditional detention, and they do better, MUSC associate professor Elizabeth Letourneau said.

A large clinic trial published four years ago compared the two groups. "That study found youth treated by the Charleston youth drug court reported significantly less delinquency and less drug use," Letourneau said. "Charleston has been a real leader in guiding the development of these courts. For us to be operating in a hometown that loses its court would just be a real shame."

Charleston lawyer Steve Dey, who serves on the court's advisory team, said keeping the court going is not only good for the youth it serves, but that it's good for taxpayers.

The court does require some money for a coordinator and a driver to transport youth to court appearances and mandated activities, but if it fades away, then the state will have to pay more money to lock them up.

"If you compare the cost of incarcerating these kids to the cost of this court, it's pennies on the dollar," Dey said.

Juvenile Drug Court often takes the hardest cases, youths who have been repeat offenders. It offers them one last chance to turn their lives around before they become adults and face stiffer penalties.

"Are we going to save all these kids? No, and it's ridiculous to think that," Dey said, "but if we get a few out of 100, we're better off than we were."