Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts	 
Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs (18-APR-02,	 
GAO-02-434).							 
                                                                 
In exchange for the possibility of dismissed charges or reduced  
sentences, defendants with substance abuse problems agree to be  
assigned to drug court programs. Judges generally preside over	 
drug court proceedings; monitor the progress of defendants; and  
prescribe sanctions and rewards in collaboration with		 
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers. Most	 
decisions about drug court operations are left to local 	 
jurisdictions. Although programs funded by the Drug Court Program
Office (DCPO) must collect and provide performance measurement	 
and outcome data, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not	 
effectively managed this effort because of (1) its inability to  
readily identify the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs,
including those subject to DCPO's data collection reporting	 
requirements; (2) its inability to accurately determine the	 
number of drug court programs responding to DCPO's semiannual	 
data collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the administration 
of DCPO's semiannual data collection effort; (4) the elimination 
of post-program impact questions from the data collection survey 
effort; and (5) the lack of use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse. 
Various administrative and research factors have also hampered	 
DOJ's ability to complete the two-phase National Institute of	 
Justice-sponsored national impact evaluation study. As a result, 
DOJ continues to lack vital information needed to determine the  
overall impact of federally funded programs and to assess whether
drug court programs use federal funds effectively.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-434 					        
    ACCNO:   A03078						        
  TITLE:     Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation   
Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs 	 
     DATE:   04/18/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Courts (law)					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Defendants 					 
	     Drug abuse 					 
	     Offender rehabilitation				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-434
     
A

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2002 DRUG COURTS Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts
Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs

GAO- 02- 434

Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 4 DOJ Has Not Sufficiently Managed
the Collection and Utilization of

Performance and Outcome Data Collected from Federally Funded Drug Court
Programs 8 DOJ?s Effort to Complete a National Impact Evaluation of DCPO-
Funded Drug Court Programs Has Fallen Short of Its

Objective 15 Conclusions 18 .Recommendations for Executive Action 19 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 23

Appendix II: Operating Drug Court Programs by Location as of December 31,
2001 27

Appendix III: Drug Court Programs by Target Population as of December 31,
2001 29

Appendix IV: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001 30

Appendix V: Number, Amount, and Type of DCPO Grants Awarded to Drug Court
Programs 70

Appendix VI: Timeline of NIJ?s Effort to Complete National Drug Court Impact
Evaluation 71

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice 73 GAO Comments 77

Appendix VIII: Comments from RAND 78

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 79 GAO Contacts 79 Staff
Acknowledgments 79

Tables Table 1: DCPO Drug Court Program Appropriations, Grant Awards, and
Other Obligations 7

Table 2: Universe of Operating and Planned U. S. Drug Court Programs by
Target Population (Based on information available as of December 31, 2001)
29 Table 3: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by

Jurisdiction (Based on information available as of December 31, 2001 30
Table 4: Drug Court Program Grants and Awards Administered by

DCPO (fiscal years 1995- 2001) 70 Figures Figure 1: Number of Drug Court
Programs Operating Between 1989

and December 31, 2001 4 Figure 2: Number of Drug Court Programs Started by
Calendar

Year 1989 through December 31, 2001 5 Figure 3: DCPO?s Semiannual Data
Collection Survey Response Rates 10

Figure 4: Number of U. S. Operating Drug Court Programs as of December 31,
2001 28

Abbreviations

DCPO Drug Court Program Office DOJ Department of Justice NIJ National
Institute of Justice

Lett er

April 18, 2002 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Committee on the Judiciary United States
Senate

The Honorable Jeff Sessions United States Senate

This report responds to your request that we assess the Department of
Justice?s (DOJ) efforts to collect data on the performance and impact of
federally funded drug court programs. The main purpose of a drug court
program is to use the authority of the court to reduce crime by changing
defendants? substance abuse behavior. Under this concept, in exchange for
the possibility of dismissed charges or reduced sentences, defendants are

diverted to drug court programs in various ways and at various stages in the
judicial process. Judges generally preside over drug court proceedings;
monitor the progress of defendants; and prescribe sanctions and rewards as
appropriate in collaboration with prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment
providers, and others. While some basic requirements are set at the federal
level, most decisions about how a drug court operates are left to local
jurisdictions.

This report follows up on our 1997 report, 1 which concluded that (1) many
drug court programs were not maintaining follow- up data on program
participants? criminal recidivism or drug use relapse after they have left
the program and (2) differences and limitations in the objectives, scope,
and methodology of existing evaluation studies, among other things, did not
permit firm conclusions to be made on the overall impact or effectiveness of
drug court programs. In our 1997 report, we recommended that DOJfunded drug
court programs be required to collect and maintain postprogram follow- up
data on program participants? criminal recidivism and, to the extent
feasible, post- program follow- up data on drug use relapse. To improve the
methodological soundness of future federally funded impact evaluations, we
recommended that these impact evaluations include postprogram

data and comparison groups within their scope. In 1998, DOJ 1 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and
Results, GAO/ GGD- 97- 106 (Washington, D. C.: July 31, 1997).

implemented our recommendations and, beginning in 1999, required its DCPO-
funded programs to periodically provide performance and outcome data on
their drug court programs. In addition, in 1998, DOJ undertook an effort,
through NIJ, to conduct a national impact evaluation using 14 DCPOfunded
drug court programs. These efforts included the collection of postprogram
data within their scope.

As agreed with your staffs, this report focuses on DOJ?s (1) Drug Courts
Program Office?s (DCPO) efforts to collect performance and outcome data from
federally funded drug court programs 2 and (2) National Institute of
Justice?s (NIJ) efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of
federally funded drug court programs. 3 To achieve these objectives, among
other things, we (1) interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug
court program researchers, stakeholders, and practitioners; (2) reviewed
DCPO program guidelines to determine grantee data collection and reporting
requirements; (3) conducted structured interviews with a representative
sample of DCPO- funded drug court programs; and (4) analyzed data from
recently completed surveys conducted by other drug court community
stakeholders. A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is
contained in appendix I.

Results in Brief Although requiring that DCPO- funded drug court programs
collect and provide performance measurement and outcome data, DOJ has not
sufficiently managed this effort. The factors contributing to insufficient
management included the (1) inability of DOJ to readily identify the
universe of DCPO- funded drug court programs, including those subject to
DCPO?s data collection reporting requirements; (2) inability of DOJ to
accurately determine the number of drug court programs that responded to
DCPO?s semiannual data collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the

2 While there are drug court programs that receive funds from other federal
sources, our review focused on those programs receiving funds from DCPO,
which is DOJ?s component responsible for administering the federal drug
court program under the Violent Crime Act. 3 NIJ is the research component
of DOJ.

administration of DCPO?s semiannual data collection effort; (4) elimination
of post- program impact questions from the scope of DCPO?s data collection
survey effort; and (5) insufficient use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse. 4
In addition, various administrative and research factors have hampered DOJ?s
ability to complete the two- phase NIJ- sponsored national impact evaluation
study. These included (1) DCPO?s delay in notifying DCPOfunded

drug court programs of the NIJ grantee?s plans to conduct site visits; (2)
the grantee?s lateness in meeting task milestones; (3) NIJ?s multiple grant
extensions to the grantee that extended the timeframe for completing phase I
and further delayed NIJ?s subsequent decision to discontinue phase II; and
(4) the inability of the phase I efforts to produce a

viable design strategy that was to be used to complete a national impact
evaluation in phase II. DOJ?s alternative plan for addressing the impact of
federally funded drug court programs is not expected to provide information
on the impact of federally funded drug court programs until year 2007. As a
result, DOJ continues to lack vital information that the

Congress, the public, and other program stakeholders may need to determine
the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs and to assess
whether drug court programs are an effective use of federal funds.

We make recommendations in this report for improving DOJ?s efforts to
collect performance and outcome data on federally funded drug court programs
and to address the need for more immediate data on the impact of these
programs.

In its April 3, 2002, written comments on a draft of this report, DOJ noted
that we make several valuable recommendations for improving the collection
of data on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court
programs and outlines steps it is considering to address some of the
recommendations we make for improving its collection of data on the

performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs. 4 The Drug
Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (Drug Court
Clearinghouse) at American University was established and has been funded by
DOJ?s Office of Justice Programs to assist state and local justice system
officials and treatment

professionals in addressing issues relating to planning, implementing,
managing, and evaluating drug court programs. It provides clearinghouse and
technical assistance services and other support to jurisdictions planning,
implementing, or expanding drug court programs. Priority for such services
is given to jurisdictions that have received or applied for funding under
DCPO?s grant program.

Background Since 1989, when the first drug court program was established,
the number of drug court programs has increased substantially. In addition,
DCPO?s oversight responsibilities and funding to support the planning,
implementation, and enhancement of these programs have increased. As shown
in figure 1, the number of operating drug court programs has more than
tripled since our prior report from about 250 in 1997 to almost 800 in 2001
based on information available as of December 31, 2001.

Figure 1: Number of Drug Court Programs Operating Between 1989 and December
31, 2001 900

Number 800

791

700

675

600

501

500 400

371

300

254

200

152

100

86 23 44 2 2 6 13 0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar
year

Source: GAO?s analysis of data obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

The number of operating programs that received DCPO funding, and thus were
subject to its oversight, has also grown- from over 150 in fiscal year 1997
to over 560 through fiscal year 2001. 5

5 The number of DCPO- funded drug court programs was based on our analyses
of information provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse. This figure may not
be an accurate representation of the universe of DCPO- funded drug court
programs. As discussed later, the Drug Court Clearinghouse does not follow
up with all DCPO- funded drug court programs.

As shown in figure 2, the number of drug court programs started by calendar
year since our prior report has also increased. Although the number of drug
court programs started in 2001 dropped, over 450 additional programs have
been identified as being planned based on

information available as of December 31, 2001.

Figure 2: Number of Drug Court Programs Started by Calendar Year 1989
through December 31, 2001 500

Number

452

450 400 350 300 250 200

180

150

132 118 103 117 100

66

50

42 10 22 2 04 7 0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar
year

Operating Planned

Source: GAO?s analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.

Based on information available as of December 31, 2001, drug court programs
were operating in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Only
New Hampshire and Vermont had no operating drug court programs. 6 Six states
(California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio) accounted for
over 40 percent of the programs. Appendix II 6 New Hampshire has plans to
start two drug court programs, and Vermont has plans to start

one drug court program. In addition, Guam has plans to start two drug court
programs.

provides information on the number of operating drug court programs in each
state. Although there are basic elements common to many drug court programs,
the programs vary in terms of approaches used, participant eligibility and
program requirements, type of treatment provided, sanctions and rewards, and
other practices. Drug court programs also target various populations

(adults, juveniles, families, and Native American tribes). Appendix III
provides details on the number of drug court programs by targeted
population, and appendix IV provides details on the drug court programs by
jurisdiction and the types of funding, if any, the programs have received
from DCPO.

Federal funding for drug court programs has also continued to increase. As
shown in table 1, congressional appropriations for the implementation of
DOJ?s drug court program has increased from about $12 million in fiscal

year 1995 to $50 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Since fiscal year
1995, Congress has appropriated about $267 million in Violent Crime Act 7
related funding to DOJ for the federal drug court program. DCPO funding in
direct support of drug court programs has increased from an average of about
$9 million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to an average of about $31 million
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 to over $30 million per year. 8 Between
fiscal years 1995 and 2001, DCPO has awarded about $174.5 million in grants
to fund the planning, implementation, and enhancement of drug court
programs. About $21.5 million in technical assistance, training, and

evaluations grants were awarded. About $19.6 million were obligated for
management and administration purposes and to fund nongrant technical
assistance, training, and evaluation efforts. Since the inception of the
DCPO drug court program, a total of $3 million in prior year recoveries have
been realized. About $4. 5 million through fiscal year 2001 had not been
obligated. Congress appropriated an additional $50 million for fiscal year
2002. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of

administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program. 7 Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P. L. 103- 322 (1994). 8 Drug court
programs have also received funding from other federal sources, state and
local governments, private sources, and/ or fees collected from program
participants. We do not include these figures in our report.

Table 1: DCPO Drug Court Program Appropriations, Grant Awards, and Other
Obligations

Dollars in millions

Technical Unobligated

Drug Court assistance,

Management and balance

Program training, and

administration, Unobligated

Fiscal carried

Appropriation grant

evaluation and other

Prior year balance year

forward amount awards

grants obligations a recoveries

remaining

1995 0.0 $11. 9 $9. 4 $0. 8 $0. 4 0. 0 $1. 3 1996 $1. 3 15. 0 8.3 0. 3 0.0
0. 0 7.7 1997 7.7 30.3 b 28. 2 2.5 0. 9 $0. 1 6. 5 1998 6.5 30.0 30. 7 4. 5
1. 1 0. 2 0. 4 1999 0.4 40.0 37. 3 0. 9 1. 8 1. 2 1. 6 2000 1.6 40.0 27. 0
7. 0 3. 3 0. 4 4. 7 2001 4.7 49. 9 c 33. 6 5.5 12. 1 1. 1 4. 5

Total $217. 1 d $174. 5 $21.5 $19. 6 $3. 0 $4. 5

a Other obligations include nongrant obligations (contracts, purchase
orders, etc.) which could include technical assistance, training, and
evaluation efforts. b Includes $339,000 in appropriation funds transferred
by the Office of National Drug Control Policy to DOJ.

c DCPO?s fiscal year 2001 appropriation amount was reduced by a 0.0022%
congressional recision. d Congress appropriated an additional $50 million
for fiscal year 2002. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of
administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program.

Source: Public Laws and DOJ?s Office of Justice Programs? Office of Budget
and Management Services.

Appendix V provides details on the number, amount, and types of grants DCPO
awarded since the implementation of the federal drug court program.

DOJ Has Not Since 1998, DCPO implementation and enhancement grantees have
been

Sufficiently Managed required to collect, and starting in 1999, to submit to
DCPO, among other things, performance and outcome data on program
participants. DCPO the Collection and collects these data semiannually using
a Drug Court Grantee Data Utilization of Collection Survey. This survey was
designed by DCPO to ensure that

Performance and grantees were collecting critical information about their
drug court programs and to assist in the national evaluation of drug court
programs. In Outcome Data

addition, DOJ intended to use the information to respond to inquiries
Collected from

regarding the effectiveness of drug court programs. However, due to various
factors, DCPO has not sufficiently managed the collection and Federally
Funded Drug utilization of these data. As a result, DOJ cannot provide
Congress, drug Court Programs

court program stakeholders, and others with reliable information on the
performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs. Factors
Contributing to Various factors contributed to insufficiencies in DOJ?s drug
court program Insufficiencies in DOJ?s

data collection effort. These factors included (1) inability of DOJ to
readily Management

identify the universe of DCPO- funded drug court programs, including those
subject to DCPO?s data collection reporting requirements; (2) inability of
DOJ to accurately determine the number of drug court programs that responded
to DCPO?s semiannual data collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the
administration of DCPO?s semiannual data collection effort; (4) the
elimination of post- program impact questions from the scope of DCPO?s data
collection survey effort; and (5) the insufficient use of the Drug Court
Clearinghouse.

DOJ Has Been Unable to Readily DOJ?s grant management information system,
among other things, tracks Identify the Universe of Drug the number and
dollar amount of grants the agency has awarded to state Court Programs It
Has Funded

and local jurisdictions and Native American tribes to plan, implement, and
enhance drug court programs. This system, however, is unable to readily
identify the actual number of drug court programs DCPO has funded.
Specifically, the system does not contain a unique drug court program
identifier, does not track grants awarded to a single grantee but used for

more than one drug court program, and contains data entry errors that impact
the reliability of data on the type of grants awarded. For example, at the
time of our review, the system contained some incorrectly assigned grant
numbers, did not always identify the type of grant awarded, and incorrectly
identified several grantees as receiving a planning, implementation, and
enhancement grant in fiscal year 2000. These factors made it difficult for
DCPO to readily produce an accurate universe of the

drug court programs that had received DCPO funding and were subject to
DCPO?s data collection reporting requirement. Although DOJ has been able to
provide information to enable an estimate of the universe of DCPO- funded
drug court programs to be derived, the accuracy of this information is
questionable because DCPO has relied on the Drug Court Clearinghouse to
determine the number of DCPO- funded drug court programs and their program
implementation dates. One of the Drug Court Clearinghouse?s functions has
been to identify DCPO- funded

drug court programs. However, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has only been
tasked since 1998 with following up with a segment of DCPO grantees to
determine their implementation date. Thus, the information provided to DCPO
on the universe of DCPO- funded drug court programs is at best an

estimate and not a precise count of DCPO drug court program grantees. Noting
that its current grant information system was not intended to readily
identify and track the number of DCPO- funded drug court programs, DCPO
officials said that they plan to develop a new management information system
that will enable DOJ to do so. Without an accurate universe of DCPO- funded
drug court programs, DCPO is unable to readily

determine the actual number of programs or participants it has funded or, as
discussed below, the drug court programs that should have responded to its
semiannual data collection survey. DOJ Has Been Unable to

According to DCPO officials, grantee response rates to DCPO?s semiannual
Accurately Determine Response survey have declined since DCPO began
administering the survey in 1998. Rates for Its Data Collection As shown in
figure 3, the information in DCPO?s database indicated that Survey

grantee response rates declined from about 78 percent for the first survey
reporting period (July to Dec. 1998) to about 32 percent for the July to
December 2000 reporting period. However, results from our follow up
structured interviews with a representative sample of the identifiable
universe of drug court programs that were DCPO grantees during the 2000

reporting periods revealed that DCPO did not have an accurate account of
grantees? compliance with its semiannual data collection survey. 9 Based on
our structured interviews, we estimate that the response rate to the DCPO
data collection survey for the January to June 2000 reporting

9 Our interviews were limited to the year 2000 reporting periods to avoid
any potential problems with drug court program staff?s ability to recall
details prior to 2000. Also, at the time of our follow up efforts, these
were the most recent reporting periods for which the survey deadlines had
passed.

period was about 60 percent in contrast to the 39 percent response rate DCPO
reported. Similarly, the response rate to the DCPO survey for the July to
December 2000 reporting period was about 61 percent in contrast to the 32
percent response rate DCPO reported. The remaining programs did

not respond or were uncertain as to whether they responded to DCPO?s data
collection survey for each of the reporting periods in 2000. DOJ officials
said that some of the surveys they did not receive may have been mailed to
an incorrect office within DOJ. DCPO officials acknowledged that this type
of error could be mitigated if DCPO routinely followed up with the drug
court programs from which they did not receive responses.

Figure 3: DCPO?s Semiannual Data Collection Survey Response Rates 10

Source: DCPO data and GAO follow- up interviews with DCPO grantees.

10 Percentages are rounded.

Furthermore, based on our follow- up structured interviews with a
representative sample of DCPO- funded drug court programs that were listed
as nonrespondents in DCPO?s database, we estimate that about 61 percent 11
had actually responded to DCPO?s survey for the January to June

2000 reporting period. About two- thirds 12 of these programs could produce
evidence that they responded. For the July to December 2000 reporting
period, we estimate that about 51 percent 13 of the DCPO- funded drug court
programs that were listed as nonrespondents in DCPO?s database had

actually responded to the survey. About two- thirds 14 of these programs
could produce evidence that they responded.

Inefficiencies Existed in the The requirement for grantees to submit DCPO?s
semiannual survey is Administration of DCPO?s outlined in DOJ?s grant award
notification letter that drug court program Semiannual Data Collection
grantees receive at the beginning of their grant period. In addition, the

Effort survey is made available in the grantee application kit as well as on
DCPO?s website. However, other than these steps, DCPO has not consistently
notified its drug court program grantees of the semiannual reporting
requirements nor has it routinely forwarded the survey to grantees. At the
time of our review, DCPO had taken limited action to improve grantees?
compliance with the data collection survey requirements. DCPO officials

said that they generally had not followed up with drug court program
grantees that did not respond to the survey and had not taken action towards
the grantees that did not respond to the semiannual data collection
reporting requirement. Results from our follow- up structured interviews
showed that DCPO had not followed up to request completed surveys from

about 70 percent 15 of the drug court program grantees that were
nonrespondents during the January to June 2000 reporting period and from
about 76 percent 16 of the nonrespondents for the July to December 2000
reporting period.

11 The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from 45 to 75
percent. 12 The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
44 to 82 percent. 13 The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate
ranges from 41 to 62 percent. 14 The 95 percent confidence interval for this
estimate ranges from 51 to 84 percent. 15 The 95 percent confidence interval
for this estimate ranges from 47 to 87 percent. 16 The 95 percent confidence
interval for this estimate ranges from 57 to 90 percent.

DCPO has had other difficulties managing its data collection effort.
Specifically, (1) DCPO inadvertently instructed drug court program grantees
not to respond to questions about program participant?s criminal recidivism
while in the program; (2) confusion existed between DCPO and its contractor,
assigned responsibility for the semiannual data collection

effort, over who would administer DCPO?s data collection survey during
various reporting periods; and (3) some grantees were using different
versions of DOJ?s survey instruments to respond to the semiannual data
collection reporting requirement. DCPO Eliminated Post- Program

The overall success of a drug court programs is dependent on whether Data
from Its Data Collection

defendants in the program stay off drugs and do not commit more crimes
Effort

when they complete the program. In our 1997 report we recommended that drug
court programs funded by discretionary grants administered by DOJ collect
and maintain follow- up data on program participants? criminal recidivism
and, to the extent feasible, follow- up data on drug use relapse.

In 1998, DCPO required its implementation and enhancement grantees to
collect and provide performance and outcome data on program participants,
including data on participants? criminal recidivism and substance abuse
relapse after they have left the program. However, in 2000,

DCPO revised its survey and eliminated the questions that were intended to
collect post- program outcome data.

The DCPO Director said that DCPO?s decision was based on, among other
things, drug court program grantees indicating that they were not able to
provide post- program outcome data and that they lacked sufficient resources
to collect such data. DCPO, however, was unable to produce specific evidence
from grantees (i. e., written correspondence) that cited difficulties with
providing post- program outcome data. The Director said that difficulties
have generally been conveyed by grantees, in person,

through telephone conversations, or are evidenced by the lack of responses
to the post- program questions on the survey.

Contrary to DCPO?s position, evidence exists that supports the feasibility
of collecting post- program performance and outcome data. During our 1997
survey of the drug court programs, 17 53 percent of the respondents said
that they maintained follow- up data on participants? rearrest or conviction
for a

17 The1997 survey collected information from non- DCPO and DCPO- funded drug
court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

nondrug crime. Thirty- three percent said that they maintained follow- up
data on participants? substance abuse relapse.

Recent information collected from DCPO grantees continues to support the
feasibility of collecting post- program performance and outcome data. The
results of structured interviews we conducted in the year 2001 with a
representative sample of DCPO- funded drug court programs showed that an
estimated two- thirds of the DCPO- funded drug court programs

maintained criminal recidivism data on participants after they left the
program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained such data for 6
months or more. Of the remaining one- third that did not maintain
postprogram recidivism data, it would be feasible for about 63 percent 18 to
provide such data. These estimates suggest that about 86 percent of
DCPOfunded drug court programs would be able to provide post- program
recidivism data if requested.

The results of structured interviews we conducted in the year 2001 with a
representative sample of DCPO- funded drug court programs also showed that
about one- third of the DCPO- funded drug court programs maintained
substance abuse relapse data on participants after they have left the
program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained such data for 6
months or more. Of the estimated two- thirds that did not maintain
postprogram substance abuse relapse data, it would be feasible for about 30
percent to provide such data. These estimates suggest that about 50 percent
of DCPO- funded drug court programs would be able to provide

post- program substance abuse data if requested. According to survey results
collected by the Drug Court Clearinghouse in 2000 and 2001, a significant
number of the drug court programs were able to provide post- program outcome
data. For example, about 47 percent of the DCPO- funded adult drug court
programs that responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse?s 2000 operational
survey 19 reported that they maintained some type of follow- up data on
program participants after they have left the program. Of these drug court
programs, about 92 percent said

18 The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from 45 to 78
percent. 19 The Drug Court Clearinghouse?s operational survey was
administered to various adult drug court program stakeholders; including the
judge/ court officials, treatment providers, prosecutors, defense counsel,
and participants. The response rate for this survey was 88 percent.

that they maintained follow- up data on recidivism and about 45 percent said
that they maintained follow- up data on drug usage. Of the DCPO- funded
adult and juvenile drug court programs operating for at least a year that
responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse?s annual survey that was published
in 2001, 20 about 56 percent were able to provide follow- up data on program
graduates? recidivism and about 55 percent

were able to provide follow- up data on program graduates? drug use relapse.
21

DCPO Has Not Sufficiently Operating under a cooperative agreement with DCPO,
the Drug Court

Utilized the Drug Court Clearinghouse has successfully collected performance
and outcome data Clearinghouse?s Data

through an annual survey of all operating adult, juvenile, family, and
tribal Collection Efforts drug court programs, including those funded by
DCPO. In addition, as previously noted, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has
generally administered

an operational survey to adult drug court programs every 3 years, including
those funded by DCPO. The Drug Court Clearinghouse annually disseminates the
results from its annual survey and has periodically

published comprehensive drug court survey reports that provide detailed
operational, demographic, and outcome data on the adult drug court programs
identified through its data collection efforts. Although funded by DOJ, the
Drug Court Clearinghouse has not been required to primarily collect and
report separately on the universe of DCPO- funded programs. In addition, no
comprehensive or representative report has been produced by DCPO or the Drug
Court Clearinghouse that focuses primarily on the performance and outcome of
DCPO- funded drug court programs. Instead, DCPO instructed the Drug Court
Clearinghouse, in July 2001, to eliminate recidivism data from its survey
publications. Although the Drug Court Clearinghouse has developed and
implemented survey instruments to periodically collect and disseminate
recidivism and relapse data, the DCPO

Director had concerns with the quality of the self- reported data collected
and the inconsistent time frames for which post- program data were being
collected by drug court programs.

20 The Drug Court Clearinghouse administers an annual survey to operating
adult, juvenile, family, and tribal drug court programs. The survey response
rates for these surveys were 89 and 87 percent, respectively. 21 Use of
?relapse? in this report refers to an arrest or conviction for a drug
possession or other drug- related offense.

DOJ?s Effort to In response to recommendations in our 1997 report, DOJ
undertook, through NIJ, an effort to conduct a two- phase national impact
evaluation

Complete a National focusing on 14 selected 22 DCPO- funded drug court
programs. 23 This effort Impact Evaluation of was intended to include post-
program data within its scope and to involve

DCPO- Funded Drug the use of nonparticipant comparison groups. However,
various Court Programs Has

administrative and research factors hampered DOJ?s ability to complete the
NIJ- sponsored national impact evaluation, which was originally to be

Fallen Short of Its completed by June 30, 2001. As a result, DOJ fell short
of its objective, Objective

discontinued this effort, and is considering an alternative study that, if
implemented, is not expected to provide information on the impact of
federally funded drug court programs until year 2007. Unless DOJ takes
interim steps to evaluate the impact of drug court programs, the Congress,
the public, and other drug court stakeholders will not have sufficient
information in the near term to assess the overall impact of federally
funded drug court programs.

The Objectives of DOJ?s The overall objective of the NIJ- sponsored national
evaluation was to study National Evaluation Effort

the impact of DCPO- funded drug court programs using comparison groups and
studying, among other things, criminal recidivism and drug use relapse. This
effort was to be undertaken in two phases and to include the collection of
post- program outcome data. The objectives for phase I, for which NIJ
awarded a grant to RAND in August 1998, were to (1) develop a

conceptual framework for evaluating the 14 DCPO- funded drug court programs,
(2) provide a description of the implementation of each program, (3)
determine the feasibility of including each of these 14 drug court programs
in a national impact evaluation, and (4) develop a viable design strategy
for evaluating program impact and the success of the 14 drug court programs.
The design strategy was to be presented in the form of a written proposal
for a supplemental noncompetitive phase II grant. 22 The 14 jurisdictions
include: Tuscaloosa County Commission and University of AlabamaBirmingham,

Alabama; Riverside County, Sacramento County, and Santa Barbara County,
California; Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida; Fulton County (Atlanta),
Georgia; Kankakee County and Cook County, Illinois; Douglas County (Omaha),
Nebraska; New York State Unified Court System- Brooklyn; Mental Health and
Anti- Addiction Services (San Juan), Puerto Rico; Virginia Supreme Court
(Roanoke), Virginia; Spokane County, Washington. These programs were the
first 14 DCPO implementation and enhancement grantees. 23 While a limited
number of individual drug court program impact evaluations had been
completed, an overall national impact evaluation had not be done.

The actual impact evaluation and an assessment of the success of the drug
court programs were to be completed during phase II of the study using a
design strategy resulting from phase I.

Various Administrative and NIJ?s two- phase national impact evaluation was
originally planned for

Research Factors Hampered completion by June 30, 2001. Phase I was awarded
for up to 24 months and

Completion of the National was scheduled to conclude no later than June 30,
2000. However phase I was not completed until September 2001- 15 months
after the original Impact Evaluation

project due date. 24 Phase II, which NIJ expected to award after the
satisfactory submission of a viable design strategy for completing an impact
evaluation, has since been discontinued. Various administrative and research
factors contributed to delays in the completion of phase I and DOJ?s
subsequent decision to discontinue the evaluation. The factors included (1)
DCPO?s delay in notifying its grantees of RAND?s plans to conduct site
visits; (2) RAND?s lateness in meeting task milestones; (3)

NIJ?s multiple grant extensions to RAND that extended the timeframe for
completing phase I and further delayed NIJ?s subsequent decision to
discontinue phase II; and (4) the inability of the phase I efforts to
produce a

viable design strategy that was to be used to complete a national impact
evaluation in phase II. Administrative Delay in Phase I of the NIJ-
sponsored study was initially hampered by DCPO?s delay Notifying Grantees

in notifying its grantees of plans to conduct the national impact
evaluation. In November 1998, DCPO agreed to write a letter notifying its
grantees of RAND?s plan to conduct the national evaluation. The notification
letters

were sent in March 1999. As a result, drug court program site visits, which
RAND had originally planned to complete by February 1999, were not completed
until July 1999.

Lateness in Meeting Task Although RAND completed most of the tasks
associated with the national Milestones

evaluation phase I objectives, it was generally late in meeting task
milestones. The conceptual framework for the evaluation of 14 DCPOfunded
drug court programs, which RAND was originally scheduled to complete by
September 1999, was submitted to NIJ in May 2000- 8 months after the
original task milestone. This timeframe, according to RAND, was 24 Although
the phase I grant award period was from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2000, NIJ
initially expected, and RAND agreed in its proposal, to complete phase I
tasks in 18 months- by December 31, 1999. Applying this timeframe would
result in the project being completed about 21 months after the original
agreed upon milestone.

impacted by the delay in DOJ?s initiation of site visits. NIJ officials said
that RAND also did not deliver a complete description and analysis of drug
court implementation issues to NIJ, which was also due in September 1999,
until it received the first draft of RAND?s report in March 2001. 25 The
feasibility study, which was originally scheduled to be completed by RAND in
September 1999, was provided to NIJ in November 1999. This study informed
NIJ of RAND?s concerns with the evaluability of some of the 14 selected DCPO
sites. The viable design strategy proposal for evaluating program impact at
each of the 14 drug court programs, which RAND was originally expected to
complete by May 1999, was not completed. In addition, as discussed below and
detailed in appendix VI, RAND was

consistently late in meeting the extended milestones for delivery of the
final product for phase I.

Multiple Grant Extensions Although RAND raised concerns in November 1999
regarding the feasibility of completing a national impact evaluation at some
of the 14 selected DCPO sites, NIJ continued to grant multiple no- cost
extensions that further extended the completion of phase I. The first no-
cost grant extension called for phase I of the project to end by September
30, 2000; the second no- cost extension called for phase I to end by
December 31, 2000; and the final

extension authorized completion of phase I by May 31, 2001. Despite the
multiple extensions and RAND?s repeated assurances that the phase I report
was imminent, a final phase I report was not completed until September 18,
2001- 21 months after the original milestone for completion of phase I. NIJ
officials said that, in retrospect, they should have

discontinued this effort sooner. Appendix VI provides additional details on
the phase I delays in the NIJ- sponsored effort to complete a national
impact evaluation. Lack of a Viable Design Strategy Phase I of the NIJ-
sponsored national impact evaluation did not produce a viable design
strategy that would enable an impact evaluation to be

completed during phase II using the selected DCPO- funded drug court
programs. RAND did offer an alternative approach. However, this approach did
not address the original objective- to conduct a national impact 25 In
August 2000, RAND provided NIJ with a linkages paper entitled Drug Courts: A
Bridge between Criminal Justice and Health Services that was prepared for
the National Institute on Drug Abuse that provided some information on the
implementation of the 14 DCPO drug court program sites. However, the
document primarily focused on health service related

issues and NIJ did not consider this a deliverable for the task milestone
associated with its national impact evaluation effort.

evaluation. During its feasibility study, RAND rated the evaluability of the
14 program sites as follows: 4 - poor or neutral/ poor, 5 - neutral, and 5 -
neutral/ good or good. In response, NIJ and DCPO asked RAND to consider
completing the evaluation using those DCPO- funded program sites that were
deemed somewhat feasible. RAND, however, was not receptive to this
suggestion and did not produce a viable design strategy based on the 14

DCPO- funded programs or the subset of DCPO- funded programs that were
deemed feasible to use in phase II to evaluate the impact of federally
funded drug court programs. 26 As a result, DOJ continues to lack a design
strategy for conducting a national impact to enable it to address the impact
of federally funded drug court programs in the near term.

DOJ?s Alternative Plan for To address the need for the completion of a
national impact evaluation,

Completing a National DCPO and NIJ are considering plans to complete a
longitudinal study 27 of Evaluation Will Not Provide

drug- involved offenders in up to 10 drug court program jurisdictions. The
Near- Term Answers

DCPO Director said that the study would be done at a national level, and the
scope would include comparison groups and the collection of individual level
and post- program recidivism data. DOJ expects that this project, which is
in its formative stage, if implemented will take up to 4 years to complete-
with results likely in year 2007. We recognize that it would take time to
design and implement a rigorous longitudinal evaluation

study and that if properly implemented, such an effort should better enable
DOJ to provide information on the overall impact of federally funded drug
court programs. However, its year 2007 completion timeframe will not enable
DOJ to provide the Congress and other stakeholders with near- term
information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs
that has been lacking for nearly a decade.

Conclusions Despite a significant increase in the number of drug court
programs funded by DCPO since 1997 that are required to collect and maintain
performance and outcome data, DOJ continues to lack vital information on the
overall

impact of federally funded drug court programs. Furthermore, the agency?s 26
NIJ asked RAND not to include its alternative proposal, which was included
in a March 2001 draft report, in the final report because it did not address
the original objectives for an impact evaluation.

27 A longitudinal study involves the collection of data at different points
in time and assesses the change of an individual or group.

alternative plan for addressing the impact of federally funded drug court
programs will not offer near- term answers on the overall impact of these
programs. Improvements in DCPO?s management of the collection and
utilization of performance and outcome data from federally funded drug

court programs are needed. Additionally, more immediate steps from NIJ and
DCPO to carry out a methodologically sound national impact evaluation could
better enable DOJ to provide Congress and other drug

court program stakeholders with more timely information on the overall
impact of federally funded drug court programs. Until DOJ takes such
actions, the Congress, public, and other stakeholders will continue to lack
sufficient information to (1) measure long- term program benefits, if any;
(2) assess the impact of federally funded drug court programs on the
criminal behavior of substance abuse offenders; or (3) assess whether drug
court programs are an effective use of federal funds..

.Recommendations for To improve the Department of Justice?s collection of
data on the

Executive Action performance and impact of federally funded drug court
programs, we

recommend that the Attorney General  develop and implement a management
information system that is able to track and readily identify the universe
of drug court programs funded

by DCPO;  take steps to ensure and sustain an adequate grantee response
rate to

DCPO?s data collection efforts by improving efforts to notify and remind
grantees of their reporting requirements;

 take corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DOJ?s data
collection reporting requirements;  reinstate the collection of post-
program data in DCPO?s data collection

effort, selectively spot checking grantee responses to ensure accurate
reporting;

 analyze performance and outcome data collected from grantees and report
annually on the results; and

 consolidate the multiple DOJ- funded drug court program- related data
collection efforts to better ensure that the primary focus is on the
collection and reporting of data on DCPO- funded drug court programs.

To better ensure that needed information on the impact of federally funded
drug court programs is made available to the Congress, public, and other
drug court stakeholders as early as possible, we also recommend that the

Attorney General take immediate steps to accelerate the funding and
implementation of a methodologically sound national impact evaluation and to
consider ways to reduce the time needed to provide information on the
overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. Furthermore, we
recommend that steps be taken to implement appropriate oversight of this
evaluation effort to ensure that it is well designed and executed, and

remains on schedule. Agency Comments and

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney Our
Evaluation

General. We also requested comments from RAND on a section of the draft
report pertaining to its efforts to complete phase I of NIJ?s national
evaluation effort. On April 3, 2002, DOJ provided written comments on the
draft report (see app. VII). The Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Justice Programs noted that we made several valuable recommendations for
improving the collection of data on the performance and impact of federally
funded drug court programs and outlined steps DOJ is considering to address
two of the

six recommendations we make for improving its collection of data on the
performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs. However,
concerning the remaining four recommendations for improving DOJ?s data
collection effort, DOJ does not specifically outline any plans (1)

for taking corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DCPO?s
data collection reporting requirements; (2) to reinstate the collection of
post program data in DCPO?s data collection effort, despite the evidence
cited in our report supporting the feasibility of collecting post program
data; (3) to analyze and report results on the performance and

outcome of DCPO grantees; and (4) to consolidate the multiple DOJ- funded
drug court program- related data collection efforts to ensure that the
primary focus of any future efforts is on the collection and reporting of
data on DCPO- funded programs.

Although DOJ points out in its comments that a number of individual program
evaluation studies have been completed, no national impact evaluation of
these programs has been done to date. We continue to believe that until
post- program follow- up data on program participants are collected across a
broad range of programs and also included within the scope of future program
and impact evaluations (including nonprogram

participant data), it will not be possible to reach firm conclusions about
whether drug court programs are an effective use of federal funds or whether
different types of drug court program structures funded by DCPO work better
than others. Also, unless these results are compared with those on the
impact of other criminal justice programs, it will not be clear whether drug
court programs are more or less effective than other criminal justice
programs. As such, these limitations have prevented firm conclusions from
being drawn on the overall impact of federally funded

drug court programs. With respect to our recommendations for improving DOJ?s
drug court program- related impact evaluation efforts, DOJ, in its comments,
outlines steps it is taking to complete a multisite impact evaluation and
its plans to

monitor the progress of this effort and to provide interim information
during various intervals. As discussed on page 18 of this report, this
effort is intended to be done at a national level, and the scope is to
include comparison groups and the collection of individual- level and post-
program recidivism data. On April 1, 2002, RAND provided written comments on
the segment of the draft report relating to DOJ?s efforts to complete a
national impact evaluation (see app. VIII). In its comments, RAND, as we do
in our report, acknowledges the need for improvements in the data collection
infrastructure for DCPO- funded drug court programs. RAND notes its
rationale for why it views the deliverables associated with phase I of the
NIJ- sponsored national impact evaluation as being timely and notes that
researchers generally have discretion to revise timelines and scopes of
work, with the agreement of the client. However, as we point out in our
report (pp. 17- 18 and app. VI), RAND requested several no- cost extensions
to complete the deliverables for various task milestones and did not produce
a viable design strategy for addressing the impact of DCPO- funded

drug court programs. In addition, NIJ officials said that RAND also did not
deliver a complete description and analysis of drug court implementation
issues to NIJ until it received the first draft of RAND?s report in March
2001. The deliverable RAND refers to in its comment letter was a paper that
RAND had prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which NIJ never
considered to be a product under the grant to evaluate the impact of DCPO-
funded drug court programs. As we also pointed out in our report

(p. 17 and app. VI), NIJ was not amenable to RAND changing the scope or
methodology of the national impact evaluation effort. In addition, RAND
commented that a ?simple? evaluation design was expected. NIJ?s original
objective, however, never called for a simple evaluation design, but rather
a

viable design strategy involving the use of comparison groups and the
collection of post- program data.

We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D. C., between
March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its issue date. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to the
Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon

request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact Daniel C. Harris or me at (202) 512- 2758 or at ekstrandl@ gao. gov.
Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix IX.

Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Our overall objective for this review was
to assess how well the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented efforts
to collect performance and impact data on federally funded drug court
programs. We specifically focused on DOJ?s (1) Drug Courts Program Office?s
(DCPO)

efforts to collect performance and outcome data from federally funded drug
court programs and (2) National Institute of Justice?s (NIJ) efforts to
complete a national impact evaluation of federally funded drug court

programs. While there are drug court programs that receive funds from other
federal sources, our review focused on those programs receiving federal
funds from DCPO, which is DOJ?s component responsible for administering the

federal drug court program under the Violent Crime Act. The scope of our
work was limited to (1) identifying the processes DCPO used to implement its
semiannual data collection effort; (2) determining DCPO grantees' compliance
with semiannual data collection and reporting requirements; (3) determining
what action, if any, DCPO has taken to monitor and ensure grantee compliance
with the data collection reporting requirements;

(4) identifying factors and barriers that may have contributed to a
grantee's nonresponse and to delays in and the subsequent discontinuation of
the NIJ- sponsored national evaluation of DCPO- funded programs; and (5)
identifying improvements that may be warranted in DOJ's data collection
efforts.

To assess how well DCPO has implemented efforts to collect performance and
outcome data from federally funded drug court programs, we (1) interviewed
appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program stakeholders and
practitioners; (2) reviewed DCPO program guidelines to determine the drug
court program grantee data collection and reporting

requirements; (3) analyzed recent survey data collected by DCPO and the Drug
Court Clearinghouse to obtain information on the number of drug court
programs that have been able to provide outcome data; and (4) conducted
structured interviews with a statistically valid probability sample of DCPO-
funded drug court programs to determine (a) the

programs' ability to comply with DCPO's data collection requirements, (b)
whether the programs had complied with the data collection requirements, and
(c) for those programs that did not comply with the data

collection requirements, why they did not comply and what action, if any,
DCPO had taken. For our structured interviews, we selected a stratified,
random sample of 112 DCPO- funded drug court programs from a total of 315
drug court

programs identified by DOJ as DCPO grantees in 2000. We stratified our
sample into two groups based on whether the programs were listed in DCPO's
database as respondents or nonrespondents to the required DCPO

semiannual data collection survey in year 2000. To validate the accuracy of
the list provided by DCPO, we compared the listing of 315 drug court
programs identified as required to comply during a year 2000 reporting
period with information on drug court program- related grants awards made by
DCPO that was provided by OJP?s Office of the Comptroller to determine if
the program was a DCPO grantee during the year 2000

reporting period. We defined a respondent as any drug court program grantee
that was identified in DCPO's database as having responded to the DCPO
survey during each applicable year 2000 reporting period. We defined a
nonrespondent as a drug court program grantee that was

identified in DCPO's database as not having responded to the DCPO survey
during any applicable year 2000 reporting period. We used a structured data
collection instrument to interview grantees. We interviewed 73
nonrespondents and 39 respondents. All results were weighted to represent
the total population of drug court programs operating under a DCPO grant in
year 2000. All statistical samples are subject to sampling errors. Measures
of sampling error are defined by two elements, the width of the confidence
intervals around the estimate (sometimes called the precision of the
estimate) and the confidence level at which the intervals are computed.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our
sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. As
each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence

level in the precision of our sample results as a 95 percent confidence
interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population
value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are
95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals based on the
structured interviews will include the true value in the study population.
All percentage estimates from the structured interviews have sampling errors
of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less unless otherwise noted. For
example, this means that if a percentage estimate is 60 percent and the 95

percent confidence interval is plus or minus 10 percentage points, we have
95 percent confidence that the true value in the population falls between 50
percent and 70 percent. We performed limited verification of the drug court
programs in our sample that were identified as non- respondents in DCPO?s
database to determine whether they were actually DCPO grantees in 2000. Data
obtained from the

drug court programs was self- reported and, except for evidence obtained to
confirm grantee compliance with DCPO's year 2000 reporting requirements, we
generally did not validate their responses. We also did not fully verify the
accuracy of the total number of drug court programs, or universe of drug
court programs, provided to us by DCPO and the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

To assess DOJ's efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of
federally funded drug court programs, we interviewed officials from (1) NIJ,
who were responsible for DOJ's national evaluation effort; (2) DCPO, who
were responsible for administering the federal drug court program under the
Violent Crime Act; and (3) RAND, who were awarded the NIJ grant to complete
phase I of the national evaluation effort. To identify the various
administrative and research factors that hampered the

completion of DOJ's national impact evaluation, we (1) interviewed NIJ and
RAND officials who were responsible for the research project; (2) reviewed
project objectives, tasks, and milestones outlined in NIJ's original
solicitation and the NIJ approved RAND proposal and grant award; (3)
reviewed correspondences between NIJ and RAND from 1998- 2001; and (4)
reviewed various project documents, including (a) RAND's evaluability
assessment, (b) progress reports submitted to NIJ, (c) RAND's requests for

no- cost extensions, (d) NIJ grant adjustment notices, (e) RAND's phase I
draft report, and (f) RAND's phase I final report. Additionally, we compared
project task milestones included in the NIJ approved RAND proposal with the
actual project task completion dates.

To determine the universe and DCPO funding of drug court programs, we (a)
interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program
stakeholders and practitioners; (b) reviewed and analyzed grant information
obtained from DOJ's Office of Justice Programs grant management information
system and DCPO; (c) reviewed and analyzed information on the universe of
drug court programs maintained by the Drug Court Clearinghouse; and (d)
reviewed congressional appropriations and DOJ press releases.

We attempted to verify information on the universe of DCPO- funded drug
court programs, but as the findings in our report note, we were unable to do
so due to inefficiencies in DOJ's drug court- related grant information
systems. We were able to validate and correct some of the information
provided by the various sources noted above through a comparison of the
various databases noted and the primary data we had collected from drug
court programs during our 1997 review and during our year 2001 follow- up

structured interviews with a stratified, random sample of DCPO- funded drug
court programs.

We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D. C., between
March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Operating Drug Court Programs by Location

Appendi x II

as of December 31, 2001 Based on information available as of December 31,
2001, drug court programs were operating in 48 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. New Hampshire and Vermont were the only states
without an operating drug court program but both have programs being
planned. Guam also has programs being planned. California, Florida,
Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio account for 344, or almost 44
percent, of the 791 operating drug courts. Figure 4 shows the number of
operating drug court programs in each jurisdiction.

Figure 4: Number of U. S. Operating Drug Court Programs as of December 31,
2001

WA VT

NH (21)

(0) (0) MT

ME (7)

ND (13)

(5) MN OR

(3) (22)

ID WI

NY MA (15) (13)

SD (1)

(44) (4)

MI RI (6)

WY (20) CA

(6) CT (4) (122)

IA PA

NV NE

(5) (7) NJ (10)

(15) (6)

OH UT

IL IN

(44) DE (7) (11) (15)

(16) CO

WV (3)

KS MO

(1) VA

MD (8) (1)

(42) KY

(12) DC (2)

(25) NC TN

(18) AZ

OK (8)

(22) NM

(25) AR SC

(27) (4)

(11) AL

GA MS

(12) (10)

(3) TX

LA (9)

(33) FL AK

(60) (4)

PR (6) HI (3)

Source: GAO?s analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.

Drug Court Programs by Target Population as

Appendi x II I of December 31, 2001 Populations targeted by U. S. drug court
programs included adults, juveniles, families, and Native American tribes.
Table 2 shows the breakdown by target population of operating and planned
drug court programs.

Table 2: Universe of Operating and Planned U. S. Drug Court Programs by
Target Population (Based on information available as of December 31, 2001)
Operating Planned Target population Non- tribal Tribal Subtotal Non- tribal
Tribal Subtotal Total

Adults 510 22 532 225 42 267 799 Juveniles 196 12 208 115 6 121 329 Adults/
juveniles 257 1 1 2 9 Families 41 0 41 58 2 60 101 Adults/ juveniles/
families112 0 0 0 2 Adults/ families 011 1 0 1 2 Juveniles/ families 000 1 0
1 1

Total 750 41 791 401 51 452 1, 243

Source: GAO?s analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.

Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction as of
December 31,

Appendi x V I 2001 As Table 3 shows, drug court programs in the United
States vary by target population and program status and have received
various types of grants from the DOJ Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO).

Table 3: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
(Based on information available as of December 31, 2001 Target population
Court status Type of DCPO grants received

Date State/ city Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning
Implementation Enhancement Continuation

Alabama

Anniston J XX

Anniston A XX

Atmore A T8/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Bessemer A 1/ 3/ 2001 X

Birmingham F 1/ 1/ 1996 Birmingham A 1/ 1/ 1996 X X

Columbiana A XX

Columbiana J XX

Cullman A 1/ 15/ 1999 X X

Cullman J XX

Fort Payne A 4/ 1/ 1999 X

Greenville/ Haynesville/ Luverne A J XX

Greenville/ Haynesville/ Luverne A XX

Guntersville A 1/ 1/ 1999 X

Hamilton A XX

Huntsville F XX

Mobile A 2/ 1/ 1993 X

Montgomery A 4/ 1/ 1999 X X

Russellville A 12/ 15/ 2000 X X

Russellville A J 12/ 15/ 2000 X X

Tuscaloosa J XX

Tuscaloosa A 4/ 1/ 1997 X X

Tuscumbia A XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Alaska

Anchorage A 7/ 1/ 2001 X X

Anchorage A 6/ 21/ 2001 Anchorage A X

Barrow A TXX

Bethel A X

Bethel A T7/ 1/ 2000 X

Chevak A TXXX

Chickaloon A TXX

Gambell a A T X

Gokona/ Anchorage A TXX

Juneau A 7/ 1/ 2000 Juneau A TXX

Kake A TXX

Kawerak A TXX

Ketchikan A TXX

Kwethluk A TXX

Napaskiak a A J T X

Quinhagak A TXX

Sitka A TXX

Unalakleet A TXX Arizona

Bisbee J XX

Camp Verde A T3/ 21/ 2000 X

Chinle A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Flagstaff A 2/ 1/ 2001 X

Globe A 6/ 1/ 1999 X X

Havasupai A JFT 3/ 1/ 2001 X X

Kayenta A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Peach Springs A J T 1/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Phoenix J 11/ 1/ 1997 X X

Phoenix A 4/ 1/ 1992 X

Phoenix A 3/ 1/ 1998 Phoenix F XX

Pipe Springs b J T3/ 1/ 1998

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Prescott F 2/ 1/ 1997 Prescott J 5/ 1/ 1997 Redhills Village/

3/ 1/ 1998 Pipe Springs b A T X X

Sacaton J T4/ 1/ 2000 X X

Scottsdale J T7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Snowflake A XX

Tuba City A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Tuc s on J 6/ 1/ 1998 X X

Tuc s on A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X

Tuc s on F XX

Tuc s on A T8/ 31/ 1998 X X X

Tuc s on J T7/ 1/ 1999 X

Tuc s on F T X X

Window Rock A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Yuma J 3/ 26/ 2001 X X

Yuma A 3/ 1/ 1998 X X Arkansas

Benton J XX

El Dorado A XX

Fayetteville A 4/ 1/ 2000 Fort Smith A XX

Hope A XX

Little Rock c A 6/ 1/ 1994 Little Rock A 11/ 1/ 1998 X

Magnolia A 9/ 20/ 2001 X

Stuttgart A XX

Tex ar k ana A 10/ 1/ 2001 X California

Auburn A 9/ 1/ 1995 X

Auburn J 9/ 1/ 1997 X

Auburn A XX

Bakersfield J 5/ 1/ 1998 X

Bakersfield A 7/ 1/ 1993 X

Barstow A XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Belmont/ 5/ 17/ 1999 South San Francisco A

X

Berkeley A 7/ 1/ 1997 Big Bear A 9/ 21/ 1999 Blythe A 10/ 1/ 1999 Chico A 6/
1/ 1995 X X

Chula Vista A 10/ 1/ 1997 X XX

Clearlake A 3/ 6/ 1996 Compton A 4/ 27/ 1998 X

Crescent City A 12/ 6/ 1999 Crescent City A 12/ 6/ 1999 Delano A 2/ 1/ 1998
X

East Lake J XX

El Cajon A 8/ 1/ 1997 X XX

El Centro A 10/ 1/ 2000 X

El Monte A 7/ 1/ 1994 X

Eureka A 2/ 1/ 1997 Fai rfiel d J XX

Fai rfiel d A 3/ 14/ 1997 X XX

Fontana A XX

Fort Bragg A 1/ 1/ 2000 X

Fresno F XX

Fresno J 1/ 1/ 1999 Fresno A 3/ 13/ 1998 X X

Fresno A 3/ 1/ 1996 X XX

Fullerton A 1/ 15/ 1999 X

Hanford J 4/ 1/ 1998 X

Hanford a A X

Hayward A 3/ 5/ 1998 X

Hoopa A TXX

Huntington Park A 5/ 1/ 1997 X

Indio A 10/ 5/ 1998 X

Inglewood A 4/ 1/ 1997 X

Joshua Tree A XX

Laguna Niguel A 1/ 1/ 1997

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Lakeport A 1/ 1/ 1998 Lompoc J 10/ 24/ 2000 Long Beach J 7/ 1/ 2000 Los
Angeles A 5/ 1/ 1998 Los Angeles A 5/ 20/ 1994 X X

Los Angeles A 8/ 1/ 1998 X

Madera F XX

Madera A 10/ 5/ 1999 Mariposa A 2/ 1/ 2000 Marysville A 1/ 1/ 1995
Marysville J 1/ 31/ 2001 X

Merced A 1/ 4/ 2000 X

Merced J 8/ 2/ 2001 X

Modesto A 6/ 1/ 1995 X XXX

Modesto J 6/ 3/ 1998 Napa J 9/ 20/ 1999 X

Napa A 8/ 1/ 2000 X

Needles A 6/ 1/ 2000 X

Nevada City A 9/ 1/ 1998 Nevada City J X

Newport Beach A 7/ 1/ 2000 Oakland A 1/ 1/ 1995 Oakland A 1/ 1/ 1991 X

Oroville J 8/ 16/ 1999 X

Pasadena A 5/ 1/ 1995 X

Placerville J 6/ 1/ 1997 Pleasanton/ Dublin/ Livermore A X

Pomona A 6/ 14/ 1999 Porterville A 3/ 1/ 1996 Quincy J 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Quincy A 2/ 1/ 1999 X

Rancho 6/ 1/ 1998 Cucamonga A Redding A 5/ 24/ 1999

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Redding J XX

Redlands A 4/ 1/ 1997 X

Redwood City A 10/ 5/ 1995 X

Redwood City J 7/ 1/ 2000 Richmond J 6/ 1/ 2000 X X

Richmond/ 1/ 1/ 1997 Martinez A X XX

Ridgecrest A 7/ 1/ 1995 Riverside A 9/ 27/ 1995 X

Riverside J 3/ 20/ 1998 X

Riverside F 10/ 4/ 1999 X

Sacramento F 11/ 1/ 2001 X

Sacramento A 5/ 1/ 1996 X

Salinas A 7/ 1/ 1995 X

San Bernardino A 11/ 1/ 1994 X

San Diego J 9/ 13/ 1999 X

San Diego F 9/ 1/ 1998 X X

San Diego A 3/ 1/ 1997 X XX

San Francisco A 11/ 1/ 1995 X

San Francisco J 12/ 1/ 1997 X XX

San Jose A 9/ 1/ 1995 X

San Jose J 8/ 1/ 1996 X

San Jose F 10/ 1/ 1998 San Luis 7/ 1/ 2001 Obispo J X

San Luis 7/ 1/ 1999 Obispo A X X

San Rafael A XXX

San Rafael J 7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Santa Ana A 3/ 1/ 1995 X X

Santa Ana J 10/ 15/ 1999 X X

Santa Barbara J 10/ 1/ 2000 X X

Santa Barbara A 3/ 1/ 1996 Santa Cruz A 1/ 15/ 1999 X XX

Santa Cruz J XX

Santa Maria A 3/ 1/ 1996 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Santa Maria J 10/ 24/ 2000 Santa Monica A 1/ 1/ 1996 X

Santa Rosa A 3/ 1/ 1996 X X X

Santa Rosa J 8/ 1/ 2000 Shafter A 7/ 1/ 1994 X

Sonora A 8/ 20/ 1999 Stockton J 8/ 1/ 1997 Stockton A 7/ 3/ 1995 X X

Sylmar J 7/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Tahoe J X

Tahoe A 7/ 1/ 1997 X

Tul ar e A 5/ 1/ 1996 Ukiah J 5/ 18/ 1998 X XXX

Ukiah & Fort 8/ 1/ 1996 Bragg A X X X

Val l ej o A 3/ 27/ 1997 Van Nuys A 6/ 1/ 1997 X X

Vent ur a J 5/ 1/ 1999 X

Vent ur a A 4/ 1/ 1995 Victor Valley A 3/ 6/ 2000 X

Visalia J 10/ 1/ 1995 X

Visalia a F X

Visalia A 5/ 1/ 1996 Vista A 1/ 1/ 1997 X XX

Walnut Creek J X

Weaverville A 3/ 1/ 1997 Weaverville J X

Westminster A 1/ 1/ 2000 Willows J X

Willows A 3/ 15/ 1999 X X

Woodland F 2/ 1/ 1998 Woodland A 3/ 3/ 1995 Woodland A 8/ 1/ 1999 Woodland J
9/ 9/ 1999 X

Yreka J 1/ 1/ 2001 Yreka A 2/ 1/ 2000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Yreka F XX

Yuba City A 1/ 24/ 2000

Colorado

Colorado Springs A X

Colorado Springs F X

Denver A 7/ 1/ 1994 X

Denver J 10/ 1/ 2000 X

Fort Collins A XX

Fort Collins A XX

Fort Collins J 1/ 14/ 1999 X XX

Ignacio F T X X Connecticut

Bridgeport A 11/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Hartford J 2/ 1/ 1998 Mashantucket A TXX

New Haven A 7/ 1/ 1996 X

Waterbur y A 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Willimantic/ Danielson A X

Delaware

Dover A 4/ 1/ 1996 X

Dover J 10/ 1/ 1998 Georgetown J 2/ 1/ 1999 Georgetown A 5/ 1/ 1996 X

Wilmington J 3/ 1/ 1996 X X

Wilmington A 4/ 1/ 1994 X

Wilmington A 4/ 1/ 1994 X District of Columbia

Washington F XX

Washington J 10/ 25/ 1998 X X

Washington A 12/ 1/ 1993 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Federal District

Hawaii A X

San Diego a A

Yo s e mi t e b A 2/ 1/ 1995

Florida

Bartow A 1/ 1/ 1994 Bartow J 6/ 1/ 1997 Bartow F XX

Bradenton J XX

Brooksville A 10/ 4/ 2001 X

Daytona F 2/ 1/ 2000 X

Daytona/ 7/ 1/ 1997 De Land A X

Daytona/ 10/ 12/ 2000 De Land J X X

Fort Lauderdale A 7/ 1/ 1991 X X

Fort Lauderdale J 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Fort Lauderdale F X

Fort Lauderdale A 4/ 1/ 2000 Fort Meyers A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Fort Meyers J XX

Fort Meyers F 12/ 24/ 2000 Ft. Pierce A 10/ 1/ 2001 Gainesville F 1/ 19/
2001 X

Gainesville J 11/ 2/ 2000 X

Gainesville A 5/ 1/ 1994 X

Green Cove Springs A XX

Inverness A 6/ 14/ 2000 X X

Inverness J X

Inverness F X

Jacksonville J 2/ 1/ 1997 X X

Jacksonville A 9/ 1/ 1994 X

Jacksonville F X

Key West J 10/ 1/ 1995 X

Key West A 10/ 1/ 1993 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Kissimmee A 2/ 1/ 2000 X

Kissimmee J XX

Kissimmee A X

La Belle A 1/ 1/ 2000 X X

Lake City A X

Lake City J X

Manatee/ 1/ 1/ 1997 Bradenton A X X

Marathon A 10/ 1/ 1995 X

Marathon F 3/ 1/ 2000 Marathon J 5/ 1/ 1996 X

Marianna A XX

Marion J 4/ 1/ 1997 Miami F 3/ 8/ 1999 Miami A 9/ 1/ 1989 X

Moore Haven A 1/ 1/ 2000 X X

Naples A 9/ 14/ 1999 X

Ocala A 4/ 14/ 1997 X

Ocala F XX

Ocala A 10/ 14/ 2000 Okeechobee A X

Orlando F 1/ 1/ 2000 X X

Orlando A 8/ 11/ 2000 X

Orlando J 8/ 1/ 1997 X X

Palatka A XXX

Panama City F 7/ 1/ 1998 Panama City J 1/ 1/ 1998 Panama City A 1/ 1/ 1997 X

Pensacola F 2/ 1/ 1996 X

Pensacola A 10/ 1/ 1993 Pensacola J 4/ 1/ 1996 X

Plantation Key J 4/ 1/ 1996 X

Plantation Key F 3/ 1/ 2000 Plantation Key A 4/ 1/ 1996 X

Punta Gorda A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Sanford A 7/ 12/ 2001 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Sarasota A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X

Shalimar/ 10/ 1/ 1993 Crestview A St. Augustine A XX

St. Petersburg J 6/ 1/ 2001 X

St. Petersburg A 1/ 16/ 2001 X

Stuart J 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Stuart A 1/ 2/ 2001 Tallahassee A 1/ 1/ 1994 Tallahassee J 7/ 1/ 1997 Tampa
A 6/ 1/ 1992 Tampa F XX

Tampa J 2/ 1/ 1996 X

Tampa A 6/ 1/ 1992 X X

Ver o Beach A X

Ver o Beach A X

Viera/ 10/ 1/ 1994 Rockledge A West Palm 11/ 6/ 2000

Beach A X X Georgia

Athens J XX

Atlanta A 3/ 1/ 1997 X

Brunswick A 11/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Columbus J 10/ 1/ 2001 X X

Covington J 1/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Cuthbert A 6/ 18/ 2001 X

Dalton A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Decatur A XX

Gainesville A 2/ 21/ 2001 X

Macon A 1/ 1/ 1994 Macon J XX

Marietta A 10/ 1/ 1992 Marietta J XX

Ogeechee A XX

Woodbine A 11/ 1/ 1998 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Guam

Hagatna J XXX

Hagatna A XX Hawaii

Hilo A XX

Honolulu J 7/ 30/ 2001 X

Honolulu A 12/ 1/ 1995 X

Kealakekua A X

Lihue A X

Wailuku A 8/ 24/ 2000 X Idaho

Blackfoot A 7/ 26/ 2001 X

Blackfoot A 3/ 1/ 2001 X

Blackfoot J 4/ 1/ 2001 X

Boise A 2/ 24/ 1999 X X

Boise J 11/ 15/ 2001 X X

Caldwell A XX

Coeur d'Alene A 10/ 1/ 1998 Coeur d'Alene J XX

Fort Hall J T10/ 1/ 1997 X

Idaho Falls J XX

Idaho Falls A 7/ 23/ 2001 X

Idaho Falls F 8/ 1/ 2001 X

Idaho Falls A 4/ 1/ 2001 X

Lewiston A XX

Malad City A XX

Pocatello A XX

Rexburg/ 3/ 1/ 2000 St. Anthony/ Driggs/ Rigby A

X

Rexburg/ St. Anthony/ Driggs/ Rigby J XX

Rexburg/ 3/ 1/ 2000 St. Anthony/ Driggs/ Rigby A

X

Rupert J 8/ 1/ 2001 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Salmon/ Challis A XX

Salmon/ Challis A XX

Salmon/ Challis J XX

Sandpoint A XX

Twin Falls/ 5/ 1/ 2001 Burley A X

Illinois

Bloomington A XX

Chicago J 9/ 1/ 1996 X X

Chicago A 4/ 1/ 1998 X X

Chicago d A 5/ 1/ 1989 Danville A XX

Decatur A 11/ 6/ 1998 X X

Edwardsville A 3/ 1/ 1996 Edwardsville J X

Harrisburg A X

Jerseyville A XX

Joliet A 12/ 1/ 1999 X X

Kankakee A 2/ 1/ 1997 X X

Kankakee J X

Markham A 3/ 1/ 1995 X

Markham A 4/ 1/ 1999 Maywood A 4/ 1/ 1998 X X

Maywood A 4/ 1/ 1998 Peori a A 12/ 3/ 1997 X

Rock Island A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Rockford A 10/ 1/ 1996 X X X

St. Charles a A XX

Urbana A 7/ 1/ 2000 Wheaton A 1/ 20/ 2000 X

Woodstock a A X Indiana

Anderson A 2/ 1/ 2000 X

Bedford J 11/ 1/ 2000 X X

Bloomington A 11/ 9/ 1999 X X

Crown Point A 10/ 1/ 1996

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

East Chicago A 8/ 14/ 2001 X

Elkhart J 1/ 1/ 1999 Evansville A X

Fort Wayne A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Gary A 9/ 16/ 1997 X X

Gary J X

Greenfield A 1/ 1/ 1991 Greenwood A 9/ 15/ 1999 X X

Indianapolis J 9/ 13/ 2000 Indianapolis A 10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Jeffersonville A XX

Kokomo A XX

Lafayette A 3/ 1/ 2001 X

Lawrenceburg A XX

Lawrenceburg J 4/ 8/ 1999 X X

South Bend A 2/ 1/ 1997 X XX

Terre Haute A 9/ 1/ 1996 X X X

Terre Haute J XX

Versailles J XX Iowa

Council Bluffs A 2/ 1/ 2000 X

Des Moines A 8/ 1/ 1996 X

Marshalltown J 11/ 1/ 2000 X

Sioux City A 7/ 1/ 1998 X

Sioux City J 7/ 1/ 1998 X X Kansas

Horton A TXX

Kansas City J X

Wichita A 8/ 1/ 1995 X Kentucky

Albany A 9/ 1/ 2000 X X

Benton A XX

Bowling Green A 4/ 1/ 1997 X

Bowling Green J XX

Cadiz A XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Cadiz A X

Catlettsburg A XX

Corbin J 5/ 25/ 2000 Covington A 4/ 1/ 1998 Covington J 11/ 2/ 2001 X

Elizabethtown A 5/ 16/ 2000 X X

Frankfort A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Frankfort J XX

Greenup A XX

Greenville A XX

Hartford J XX

Hawesville A XX

Hazard J XX

Hazard A XX

Henderson J XX

Hickman A 10/ 1/ 1999 X X

Hopkinsville A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Hopkinsville J 4/ 6/ 2000 Lebanon A XX

Lexington J 1/ 18/ 2001 X X

Lexington A 6/ 1/ 1996 X

Lexington A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Liberty A XX

London A 4/ 1/ 2000 X X

Louisville J 7/ 1/ 1997 Louisville F XX

Louisville A 7/ 1/ 1993 X

Mayfield A XX

Murray J XX

Newport J 6/ 1/ 1998 X

Newport A 12/ 1/ 1999 Nicholasville J XX

Nicholasville A XX

Owensboro A 2/ 1/ 2000 X X

Owensboro J XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Paducah A XX

Paintsville A XX

Paris/ 7/ 1/ 2000 Georgetown/ Versailles A

X

Pikeville A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Pineville A XX

Prestonsburg A XX

Providence A XX

Richmond J XX

Shelbyville A 3/ 1/ 2001 X

Shelbyville a A X

Somerset J 11/ 1/ 2000 X

Wickliffe/ 10/ 1/ 1999 Bardwell A X X

Winchester/ 11/ 1/ 1998 Richmond A X X

Louisiana

Alexandria J 11/ 1/ 1999 X

Alexandria A 10/ 20/ 1997 X X

Baton Rouge A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Baton Rouge J 10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Benton/ Bossier City A XX

Benton/ 2/ 1/ 2001 Bossier City J X

Breaux Bridge A X

Breaux Bridge J 9/ 1/ 1999 Covington J 4/ 1/ 2000 X X

Covington A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Covington A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Edgard A 10/ 1/ 2000 X

Franklin J 3/ 15/ 1999 X X

Franklin A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X

Gretna A 8/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Hahnville A 11/ 7/ 2000 X

Harvey J 12/ 1/ 1998 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Houma A XXX

Lafayette A 6/ 1/ 1998 X X

Lake Charles A 2/ 1/ 1997 X

Lake Charles J 5/ 15/ 2000 X X

Leesville A 9/ 1/ 1999 X

Livingston/ 7/ 7/ 1998 Amite A Mansfield J 8/ 1/ 1999 X X

Mansfield A 2/ 1/ 2000 X X

Monroe J 6/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Monroe A 7/ 1/ 2000 New Iberia A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

New Iberia J 9/ 22/ 2000 X

New Orleans A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

New Orleans e A 8/ 1/ 1997 X X

New Orleans J 11/ 1/ 1999 X X

Oak Grove A 1/ 1/ 1999 Oberlin A XX

Shreveport J 3/ 1/ 1999 Shreveport A X

Slidell J 4/ 1/ 2000 X

St. Martinville A F XX

Thibodaux A 3/ 1/ 1999 X X

Vidalia J XX

Webster A XX

Webster J 1/ 3/ 2001 X Maine

Alfred A XX

Augusta/ 1/ 1/ 2000 Waterville J Bangor A 3/ 15/ 2001

Bangor J 1/ 1/ 2000 Biddeford A 3/ 15/ 2001 Calais A 3/ 15/ 2001 Lewiston A
3/ 15/ 2001 Machias A 3/ 15/ 2001

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Old Town A T3/ 1/ 2000 X

Por tl and A 3/ 15/ 2001 Por tl and J 1/ 1/ 2000 Por tl and f A 12/ 1/ 1997
X

Princeton A TXX

Rumford A 3/ 15/ 2001 South Paris J X

West Bath J 1/ 1/ 2000 Yo r k J 1/ 1/ 2000

Maryland

Annapolis A 2/ 1/ 1997 X

Annapolis J X

Baltimore J 9/ 15/ 1998 X

Baltimore F X

Baltimore A 3/ 1/ 1994 Baltimore A 10/ 1/ 1994 Bel Air A 10/ 1/ 2001 Bel Air
J 1/ 1/ 2000 X X

Easton J 10/ 1/ 1998 Edgewood/

11/ 1/ 1997 Bel Air A X

Ellicott City J XX

Ellicott City A XX

Rockville A X

Tows on J XX

Upper Marlboro A XX Massachusetts

Ayer A XX

Barnstable A XX

Brighton A 6/ 6/ 2000 X

Cambridge J XX

Cambridge A X

Chelsea A 7/ 1/ 2001 X

Dorchester c A 6/ 1/ 1995 Dorchester A 2/ 19/ 1999 East Boston A 2/ 1/ 1999
X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Framingham A 11/ 15/ 1999 X X

Greenfield/ 1/ 1/ 1997 Orange A JF X

Haverhill A 2/ 1/ 1998 X X

Lawrence A 10/ 1/ 2000 X X

Lynn/ Salem A 9/ 14/ 1999 X

New Bedford A 9/ 1/ 2000 X X

Quincy A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Roxbury A 2/ 19/ 1999 Salem J 6/ 1/ 2000 X

South Boston A 2/ 19/ 1999 X

Springfield J X

West Roxbury A XX

Worcester A 2/ 1/ 1996 X Michigan

Bloomfield Hills A XX

Charlotte A 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Charlotte A 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Charlotte A 5/ 1/ 2000 Charlotte F XX

Detroit A 7/ 1/ 1997 X X

Detroit A 9/ 1/ 1997 X

Detroit J 1/ 1/ 2000 X

Flint A XX

Flint J X

Grand Rapids A 6/ 1/ 1999 X

Grand Rapids F XX

Hastings A XX

Hastings J XX

Howell/ Brighton A XX

Howell/ Brighton J XX

Kalamazoo J 2/ 1/ 1998 X

Kalamazoo A 2/ 1/ 1992 X X

Kalamazoo A 1/ 1/ 1997 Lansing J

Lansing F XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Lapeer J XX

Monroe J 8/ 1/ 2001 X

Mt. Clemens A XX

Mt. Clemons J 9/ 1/ 1999 Mt. Pleasant A XX

Muskegon F XX

Novi A 3/ 5/ 2001 X

Peshawbestown A TXX

Petoskey A TXX

Ponti ac A 8/ 29/ 2001 X

Ponti ac J 6/ 1/ 2001 X

Sault Ste. Marie A T4/ 1/ 2001 X X

Southfield A XX

St. Joseph A 10/ 1/ 1992 St. Joseph J X

Tr aver s e Ci t y A XX

Tr oy A 4/ 1/ 2001 X

Warren A 9/ 27/ 1999 X X

Waterford A 2/ 14/ 2001 X

West Branch J XX Minnesota

Minneapolis A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Red Lake A TXX

St. Paul A 6/ 1/ 2001 X

St. Paul J 6/ 21/ 2001 White Earth A TXX Mississippi

Greenville A XX

Gulfport A XX

Jackson A 7/ 1/ 1997 X

Magnolia J XX

McComb A 2/ 1/ 1999 Ridgeland A 10/ 1/ 1997 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Missouri

Andrew A X

Ava A 1/ 1/ 2001 Benton A 11/ 1/ 1999 X

Benton J 5/ 1/ 1997 X X

Bloomfield A 8/ 11/ 1999 X

Butler A X

Charleston A 11/ 19/ 1999 Chillicothe A 9/ 10/ 2001 X

Clayton A 4/ 12/ 1999 Clayton F 4/ 1/ 2000 X

Clinton A X

Columbia A 9/ 1/ 1999 X

Columbia J 6/ 1/ 2000 X

Forsyth A 7/ 1/ 1999 Fulton/

1/ 1/ 2000 Columbia A Gainesville A 1/ 1/ 2001

Harrisonville A X

Hartville A 1/ 1/ 2001 Hillsboro A 1/ 13/ 1999 X

Jackson A 6/ 1/ 2001 X

Jefferson City F XX

Jefferson City J 1/ 1/ 2000 Jefferson City A 1/ 13/ 1999 X

Joplin A XX

Kahoka A XX

Kansas City A XX

Kansas City J 3/ 1/ 1999 Kansas City F 4/ 1/ 1998 X X

Kansas City A 10/ 1/ 1993 X

Kennett A 10/ 1/ 1998 X

Kirksville A XX

Lexington J X

Lexington A 5/ 1/ 1996 Liberty A X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Marshall A 6/ 1/ 1999 Maryville A XX

Mexico A X

Mississippi F X

Montgomery City A X

Neosho A 2/ 1/ 1999 X

Neosho F 6/ 1/ 1999 X

Neosho J 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Nevada A 1/ 18/ 2001 X

Ozark A 2/ 1/ 1998 Pineville J 1/ 1/ 2001 Poplar Bluff A 7/ 1/ 1999 Poplar
Bluff A 4/ 1/ 1999 Savannah J 1/ 1/ 2001 Sedalia A X

Springfield J XX

Springfield A 10/ 1/ 1998 X

St. Charles A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

St. Charles J F XX X

St. Charles A XX

St. Joseph A 10/ 1/ 1997 St. Joseph J 7/ 1/ 2000 X X

St. Louis A 4/ 21/ 2000 X

St. Louis F 1/ 2/ 2001 X

St. Louis J 9/ 1/ 1998 St. Louis A 4/ 1/ 1997 X XX

Union A 9/ 1/ 1999 X

Union F XX

Warrenton A X Montana

Billings F 6/ 14/ 2001 X

Billings J XX

Box Elder A TXX

Bozeman A 9/ 1/ 2000 X X

Browning A T1/ 1/ 1998 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Browning J T XX

Crow Agency A TXX

Great Falls J XX

Harlem A FT3/ 1/ 1998 X X

Lame Deer J T XX

Missoula J 10/ 1/ 1996 X X X

Popl ar J T5/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Superior A 3/ 14/ 2001 X Nebraska

Grand Island A XX

Lincoln A 7/ 18/ 2001 X X

Lincoln J 4/ 1/ 2001 X X

Macy J T XX

Omaha A XX

Omaha A 4/ 1/ 1997 X XXX

Omaha J 2/ 26/ 2001 X X

Papillion J 5/ 6/ 2000 X

Sidney A 10/ 4/ 2000 X Nevada

Carson City J 11/ 1/ 1999 X

Duckwater A T9/ 1/ 1999 Duckwater A J T10/ 1/ 1997 X

Elko J XX

Elko A TXX

Elko A TXX

Gardnerville A TXX

Henderson A X

Henderson A X

Las Vegas A 10/ 1/ 1992 X

Las Vegas A 1/ 1/ 2000 Las Vegas A X

Las Vegas F 6/ 1/ 1996 Las Vegas J 3/ 1/ 1995 Laughlin A 3/ 1/ 1998 Mesquite
e A 2/ 1/ 1998

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Nixon A J T XX X

North Valley A 3/ 1/ 1998 Reno F 10/ 1/ 1994 X

Reno J 7/ 1/ 1995 Reno A 11/ 1/ 2001 X

Reno A 7/ 1/ 1995 Sparks A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Tonopah A XX

Ye r i n g t o n A 9/ 17/ 2001 X New Hampshire

Concord a A X

Laconia A XX

Plymouth A XX New Jersey

Asbury Park A XX

Bridgeton a A X

Camden F XX

Camden A 4/ 1/ 1996 X X X

Camden J 8/ 1/ 1998 X

Elizabeth A 10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Freehold A XX

Hackensack A XX

Jersey City J 11/ 1/ 1997 X X

Long Branch A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Middletown A XX

Mt. Holly A XX

Newark A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Newark A 3/ 1/ 1996 Newark J XX

Paterson J XX

Paterson A 4/ 15/ 1999 X X

Paterson A 10/ 1/ 1997 X X

Tom' s Ri ver s A XX

Trenton J XX

Trenton A 10/ 1/ 1998

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

New Mexico

Alamogordo J 9/ 1/ 2000 Alamogordo A X

Albuquerque A 10/ 1/ 1997 X X

Albuquerque A 9/ 1/ 1995 X

Albuquerque J 8/ 26/ 1998 X

Albuquerque F X

Aztec A 10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Aztec J 10/ 1/ 1998 X

Aztec A 8/ 1/ 1994 Bernalillo J 9/ 1/ 1999 X

Bernalillo A 5/ 21/ 1999 Crownpoint A J T 5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Espanola J 7/ 1/ 2000 Farmington A 8/ 1/ 1994 Farmington J 9/ 1/ 2000 X X

Gallup A 3/ 1/ 1999 Gallup b J 3/ 1/ 1999 X

Las Cruces A 4/ 1/ 1995 Las Cruces A 2/ 1/ 1997 X

Las Cruces J 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Las Cruces F XX

Las Cruces A 2/ 1/ 1995 Las Vegas J XX

Los Lunas J XX

Lovington J XX

Lovington F XX

Mescalero J T6/ 1/ 2001 X X

Mesilla A 2/ 1/ 1995 Mesilla A 2/ 1/ 1995 Pueblo of Acoma A TXX

Ramah A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

San Juan Pueblo a A T X

Santa Fe A 4/ 1/ 1996 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Santa Fe F XX

Santa Fe A 1/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Shiprock A T5/ 1/ 2000 X X

Sunland Park g A 2/ 1/ 1995 Taos J 5/ 1/ 2001 X

Taos A 10/ 1/ 1998 X

Taos a A T X

Zuni A TXX New York

Albany A 1/ 28/ 2000 Albany F XX

Albany A 1/ 28/ 2000 Amherst A 9/ 9/ 1996 X XX

Amsterdam A 2/ 1/ 2001 X

Batavia A 2/ 22/ 1999 X X

Bath A XX

Beacon/ Poughkeepsie A XX

Bethlehem A 1/ 28/ 2000 Binghamton A XX

Bronx A 4/ 1/ 1999 X XX

Bronx F XX

Brooklyn J X

Brooklyn A 6/ 1/ 1996 X

Brooklyn F XX

Brooklyn A XX

Brooklyn/ Red Hook a A X

Buffalo J XX

Buffalo F X

Buffalo A 12/ 1/ 1995 X XXX

Buffalo J 1/ 1/ 2001 X X

Buffalo F 5/ 1/ 2001 X

Canandaigua A 7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Central Islip J XX

Central Islip F 12/ 10/ 1997

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Central Islip A 9/ 9/ 1996 X X X

Cheektowaga A 8/ 1/ 1998 X X

Colonie f A 1/ 28/ 2000 Cooperstown A 4/ 20/ 2000 X X

Dunkirk A XX

Fort Edward A XX

Goshen F XX

Greenburgh A XX

Hamburg A XX

Harlem J XXX

Hudson A XX

Ithaca F 7/ 1/ 2001 X

Ithaca A 1/ 1/ 1998 X X

Ithaca A 6/ 1/ 2000 Johnstown A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Kew Gardens A XX

Kew Gardens A 5/ 1/ 1998 X X

Kingsbury A 5/ 1/ 2000 Kingston A 9/ 6/ 2001 X

Lackawanna J XX

Lackawanna A 1/ 1/ 1996 X

Lake George A XX

Lockport A 9/ 5/ 2000 X

Manhattan A 9/ 9/ 1998 Manhattan A 7/ 21/ 2000 X

Manhattan A X

Manhattan F 3/ 8/ 1998 Manhattan F 9/ 1/ 2000 X

Mayville/ 2/ 1/ 2000 Jamestown J X

Mineola A XX

Monticello F XX

Mt. Vernon A 10/ 12/ 2000 X X

New City A 2/ 1/ 1998 X X

New City F XX

New Rochelle A XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Niagara Falls A 1/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Niagara Falls J XX

North Tonawanda A XX

Oswego A 6/ 1/ 1999 X X

Oswego F XX

Plattsburgh A XX

Queens F XX

Rochester F 8/ 1/ 2001 X

Rochester A 1/ 30/ 1995 X

Rochester J 6/ 6/ 2000 X

Schenectady A 8/ 16/ 2001 X

Staten Island/ New York City A XX

Syracuse A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Syracuse F XX

Tonawanda A 4/ 1/ 1998 X X

Tonawanda J 10/ 1/ 2001 X

Tr oy A 11/ 1/ 1997 X X

Tr oy A 11/ 1/ 1997 X

Utica A XX

White Plains F XX

Yonkers/ 1/ 2/ 2001 Elmsford A X

North Carolina

Asheboro A XX

Asheville A 12/ 1/ 2000 X

Bayboro A 12/ 1/ 1999 X

Bladen A X

Charlotte F 11/ 30/ 1999 X

Charlotte A 7/ 10/ 1998 X

Charlotte A 3/ 1/ 2000 X

Charlotte A 2/ 1/ 1995 X

Charlotte A 2/ 1/ 1995 X

Charlotte J 7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Cherokee J T5/ 1/ 1999 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Durham A 11/ 1/ 1999 X X

Durham F XX

Fayetteville A XX

Greensboro A XXX

Hickory A 5/ 29/ 2001 X

Hillsboro A XX

Jacksonville A XX

Raleigh J 10/ 30/ 1998 X

Raleigh A 5/ 1/ 1996 X

Raleigh A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Roxboro/ 7/ 1/ 1996 Yanceyville A X

Salisbury J XX

Smithfield A XX

Warrenton A 12/ 1/ 1996 X

Wilmington A 5/ 1/ 1997 X

Winston Salem J XX

Winston Salem A 6/ 1/ 1996 X North Dakota

Belcourt A T8/ 15/ 1999 X XX

Belcourt J T X

Bismarck A 3/ 1/ 2001 X X

Fargo J 5/ 1/ 2000 X

Fort Yates A TXX

Ft. Totten J T1/ 12/ 2000 X X

Grand Forks J 5/ 1/ 2000 X

New Town A TXX Ohio

Akron J 1/ 1/ 2001 Akron A 9/ 1/ 1995 X

Akron A XX

Athens A 2/ 1/ 2001 X

Batavia J 9/ 23/ 1999 X

Bucyrus A 4/ 1/ 1999 X

Bucyrus A 4/ 1/ 1999 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Canfield/ 2/ 7/ 2001 Sebring A X X

Canton A 7/ 1/ 1998 X X

Chillicothe a J X

Cincinnati A 3/ 22/ 1995 Circleville J 7/ 1/ 2000 Cleveland A 3/ 2/ 1998 X

Cleveland J 4/ 1/ 1998 X X

Dayton A 1/ 1/ 1996 X X X

Dayton J 1/ 1/ 1998 X X

Delaware J 6/ 1/ 2000 X

Delaware F 1/ 1/ 2000 Elyria F 2/ 1/ 2000 Elyria J 2/ 1/ 2000 Hamilton A 9/
1/ 1996 X

Hamilton F 6/ 1/ 1998 Lancaster J 8/ 1/ 1997 X

Lebanon J XX

Lima A XX

Logan A 1/ 1/ 2000 X X

Logan J 1/ 1/ 2000 X

Mansfield J 4/ 1/ 1999 Mansfield A 4/ 14/ 1997 X X

Mansfield A 4/ 14/ 1997 X X

McArthur A XX

Mt. Gilead F 3/ 1/ 2000 Mt. Gilead J 9/ 1/ 2000 Mt. Gilead A 3/ 1/ 2000 X

Mt. Vernon J 7/ 1/ 2000 Norwalk A 4/ 1/ 1999 X

Norwalk A 3/ 1/ 2000 X

Saint Clairsville J 2/ 6/ 1999 X XX

Saint Clairsville A 9/ 1/ 2000 X

Sandusky A 4/ 15/ 1996 X

Springfield J 2/ 1/ 2001 Steubenville J 11/ 15/ 2001 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Tol edo J XX

Tol edo F 3/ 1/ 2000 Tol edo A 8/ 1/ 1997 X

Tr oy J 7/ 1/ 2000 Tr oy A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Tr oy A 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Uhrichsville A XX

Warren A 2/ 1/ 2000 X

Youngstown A 6/ 1/ 1998 X XX Oklahoma

Ada A 9/ 1/ 1997 Binger a A T X

Bristow/ 6/ 1/ 1996 Sapulpa A X X

Chickasha A X

Claremore A 6/ 1/ 2000 X

Claremore J XX

Concho A TXX

El Reno F XX

El Reno A X

Elk City J 2/ 1/ 1998 X X

Enid A 4/ 12/ 2000 X

Enid J 4/ 12/ 2000 X X

Guthrie A 5/ 1/ 1995 Holdenville A 4/ 1/ 1999 X

McLoud A TXX

Muskogee A 8/ 1/ 2000 X

Norman A XX

Oklahoma City A XX

Okmulgee A T6/ 22/ 1999 X XX

Pauls Valley A J 5/ 1/ 1998 Pawhuska A TXX

Pawnee A TXX

Perki ns A T2/ 1/ 2000 X

Poteau A 7/ 15/ 2000 X

Purcell A 5/ 1/ 1998 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Red Rock A TXX

Sallisaw A 11/ 1/ 1999 Seminole F X

Seminole J 1/ 1/ 2001 X X

Seminole A 8/ 1/ 1997 X X

Shawnee A 10/ 1/ 1998 X

Shawnee J T10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Stillwater A X

Stillwater A 5/ 1/ 1995 X

Stillwater J 1/ 1/ 1997 X

Tahlequah A 12/ 22/ 1999 Tahlequah A 11/ 15/ 1999 X X

Tul s a A 5/ 1/ 1996 X

Tul s a F X

Tul s a J 7/ 1/ 2000 Tul s a A XX Oregon

Astoria/ 7/ 1/ 2001 Tillamook A Astoria/

Tillamook J X

Astoria/ Tillamook F X

Bend J X

Bend F XX

Coquille/ 1/ 1/ 2001 Gold Beach J Coquille/

Gold Beach F X

Corvallis A XX

Dallas A X

Enterprise A 1/ 1/ 2000 Eugene J 3/ 29/ 2000 X

Eugene A 9/ 1/ 1994 X

Grants Pass A 3/ 1/ 1996 X X

Grants Pass J X

Hillsboro A X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Klamath Falls A 3/ 1/ 1996 X

La Grande A X

Madras J 3/ 29/ 2000 X

Madras A 10/ 1/ 1997 X X

McMinnville A 6/ 1/ 1997 X

McMinnville J 1/ 1/ 2001 Medford F XX

Medford J X

Oregon City A 1/ 10/ 2000 X X

Oregon City J XX

Pendl eton J T XX

Pendl eton A XX

Por tl and J 1/ 10/ 2001 X

Por tl and A 8/ 1/ 1991 X

Por tl and A X

Prineville A 10/ 1/ 1997 X X

Prineville J XX

Roseburg F XX

Roseburg A 1/ 1/ 1996 X

Roseburg J 5/ 1/ 2000 X

Salem A 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Salem J 1/ 1/ 2001 St. Helens J 1/ 1/ 2000 The Dalles A XX

Val e A 1/ 1/ 2001 X X

Val e A 1/ 1/ 2001 X X Pennsylvania

Erie J XX

Erie A 3/ 1/ 2000 X X

Hollidaysburg A XX

Philadelphia A 1/ 1/ 1997 X X X

Pittsburgh A 2/ 1/ 1998 Saegertown A X

Scranton A 7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Scranton J XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Scranton F XX

West Chester A 10/ 1/ 1997 X X

Williamsport A 7/ 1/ 1998 X X

Yo r k A 10/ 2/ 1997 X X Puerto Rico

Arecibo A 4/ 1/ 1996 Bayamon A 1/ 1/ 2001 Carolina A 4/ 1/ 1996 Faj ardo A X

Guayama A 7/ 1/ 2000 Humacao A X

Ponce A 10/ 1/ 1996 San Juan A 4/ 1/ 1996 X XXX

Utuado A X Rhode Island

Bristol J 4/ 1/ 2000 X

Kent J 7/ 1/ 2000 X

Newport J 1/ 1/ 2000 X

Providence J 12/ 6/ 1999 X X

Providence A 1/ 1/ 2001 X X

Providence F X

Westerly J 1/ 1/ 2000 X South Carolina

Aiken A X

Anderson A X

Anderson J 1/ 1/ 2001 X

Beaufort & 5/ 1/ 2000 Hampton A Charleston J 9/ 1/ 1997 X X

Charleston F XX

Charleston A 8/ 1/ 1999 X X

Columbia A 10/ 1/ 1996 Columbia J 1/ 1/ 1998 Darlington A XX

Edgefield A X

Florence J XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Greenville A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Kingstree A XX

Lancaster J XX

Lexington A 7/ 25/ 1996 X X X

Lexington J 5/ 3/ 2000 Manning A XX

Manning F 8/ 1/ 1999 X

North Charleston A X

Orangeburg A X

Rock Hill J XX

Spartanburg A XX

Spartanburg J X

Yo r k A 7/ 1/ 2001

South Dakota

Agency Village A J T11/ 1/ 1997 X X

Flandreau A J T 9/ 1/ 2000 X X

Lower Brule A TXXX

Marty A T1/ 1/ 1997 X X

Pine Ridge A TXX

Rosebud J T5/ 8/ 2001 X X Tennessee

Alamo J XX

Athens A XX

Charlotte A 3/ 1/ 2001 X

Chattanooga A XX

Clarksville a A XX

Columbia A XX

Cookeville A X

Decaturville J 8/ 1/ 1997 X

Elizabethton A XX

Erin A 11/ 1/ 2000 Erwin A XX

Franklin A XX

Gallatin A XXX

Greeneville A XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Johnson City A XX

Knoxville A 2/ 1/ 1999 X

Lawrenceburg A XX

Maryville A 1/ 1/ 1999 X X

Maryville J XX

Memphis A 2/ 1/ 1997 X

Murfreesboro A 12/ 1/ 1999 X X

Nashville A XX

Nashville A 5/ 1/ 1997 X XX

Sevierville A XX

South Cumberland A XX

Springfield a J X

Union City A XX Texas

Austin J 5/ 23/ 2001 X X

Austin A 8/ 1/ 1993 X

Beaumont A 3/ 1/ 1993 Conroe A 9/ 23/ 1999 X X

Dallas A 11/ 1/ 1997 X X X

El Paso F 10/ 1/ 1999 El Paso A XX

El Paso J T6/ 1/ 2000 X X

Fort Worth A 9/ 1/ 1996 Fort Worth J 3/ 1/ 1999 Houston A XX

Laredo A XX

McAllen J XX

San Antonio A XX Utah

Castle Dale F 7/ 1/ 2000 Farmington J XX

Farmington A 7/ 1/ 1999 X

Manti A XX

Ogden J 9/ 1/ 2001 X X

Ogden A 3/ 1/ 2000 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Orem J 3/ 1/ 1999 Provo A 1/ 1/ 1998 X

Provo J 3/ 1/ 1999 Provo/

3/ 1/ 2000 Springville F X

Richfield A XX

Salt Lake City F XX

Salt Lake City A 6/ 15/ 1996 X X X

Sandy J 1/ 1/ 1996 St. George A XX

Ver nal A 10/ 1/ 1998 X X Vermont

Newport A X Virginia

Alexandria F 8/ 30/ 2001 X

Alexandria J X

Amherst/ Lynchburg J X

Charlottesville F XX

Charlottesville A 7/ 1/ 1997 X X

Chesapeake A XX

Chesterfield A 9/ 5/ 2000 X X

Chesterfield J XX

Colonial Heights J X

Danville J XX

Fredericksburg J 11/ 3/ 1998 X X

Fredericksburg A 9/ 21/ 1998 X X

Fredericksburg A X

Hampton A XX

Hanover J XX

Manassas A X

Manassas J XX

Newport News J XXX

Newport News A 11/ 9/ 1998 X X

Norfolk a F X

Norfolk A 1/ 1/ 1998

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Petersburg A X

Portsmouth A 1/ 4/ 2001 X X

Prince George A XX

Radford A XX

Richmond A 11/ 1/ 1996 X

Richmond J 10/ 1/ 1998 X X

Richmond A XX

Richmond/ Oliver Hill F XX

Roanoke A 9/ 1/ 1995 X X

Rocky Mount J XX

Staunton A XX

Suffolk J X

Suffolk A X

Virginia Beach A 10/ 1/ 1997 X

Virginia Beach A XX

Virginia Beach J XX Washington

Bellingham A 7/ 8/ 1999 X X

Bellingham J XX

Bellingham A TXX

Everett A 10/ 1/ 1999 X X

Everett a F X

Everett J XX

Kelso A 8/ 13/ 1999 X

Kennewick J XX

Kennewick A XX

Mt. Vernon A 1/ 1/ 1998 X X

Neah Bay A T3/ 1/ 1998 X XX

Olympia J XX

Olympia A 1/ 1/ 1998 X X

Por t Angel es J 7/ 1/ 1997 X

Por t Angel es A 9/ 9/ 1999 X

Por t Orchard J 2/ 1/ 1999 X XX

Por t Orchard A 2/ 1/ 1999 X XX

Por t Orchard F XX

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Seattle F X

Seattle A 10/ 1/ 1994 X

Seattle J 10/ 1/ 1999 X

Shelton A XX

Spokane A 1/ 1/ 1996 X XX

Spokane J 9/ 9/ 1999 X

Suquamish A TXX

Tac oma F 3/ 15/ 2001 X

Tac oma J XX

Tac oma A 10/ 1/ 1994 X

Tokeland A TXX

Toppenish A T10/ 1/ 2000 X

Toppenish J T XX

Vancouver A 5/ 19/ 1999 X

Wellpinit J T7/ 1/ 2000 X X

Wellpinit A T7/ 1/ 1999 X X

Ya k i ma A 2/ 15/ 2000 X X West Virginia

Hamlin A X

Huntington J 8/ 1/ 1999

Wisconsin

Bowler A TXX

Keshena A TXXX

La Crosse A XX

Madison A 6/ 1/ 1996 X X

Madison J X

Milwaukee A XX

Odanah A TXX

Sparta F XX Wyoming

Afton A 4/ 1/ 2000 Casper A XX

Cheyenne A XX

Cody A XX

Evanston A 11/ 1/ 1997 X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Target population Court status Type of DCPO grants received Date State/ city
Adult Juvenile Family Tribal Implemented Planned Planning Implementation
Enhancement Continuation

Ft. Washaskie A T11/ 14/ 2001 X

Gillette A XXX

Gillette J XX

Kemmerer A 4/ 1/ 2000 X

Lander J XX

Lander A XX

Laramie A XX

Powel l J XX

Sheridan J 1/ 1/ 2000 Sheridan A 8/ 1/ 1998 X X

Notes: a Drug court planning suspended.

b Drug court activities suspended in 2000. c Drug court activities
consolidated in 1999. d Drug court activities suspended in 1994. e Drug
court activities consolidated in 2000. f Drug court activities consolidated
in 2001. g Drug court activities consolidated in 1997.

Number, Amount, and Type of DCPO Grants

Appendi x V

Awarded to Drug Court Programs Table 4 shows the number and total amount of
DCPO grants awarded to plan, implement, or enhance U. S. drug court programs
from fiscal years 1995 through 2001. 28

Table 4: Drug Court Program Grants and Awards Administered by DCPO (fiscal
years 1995- 2001)

Dollars in millions

Type of grant Planning a Implementation b Enhancement c Continuation d Tot
al Fiscal

Number Amount

Number Amount

Number Amount

Number Amount

Number Amount year of grants awarded of grants awarded of grants awarded of
grants awarded of grants awarded e

1995 52 $1.6 9 $4. 7 9 $3.1 0 0.0 70 $9. 4

1996 0 0. 0 9 3. 5 7 4. 8 1 0. 0 17 8. 3

1997 80 1.5 83 22. 3 17 4. 2 1 $0.2 181 28.2

1998 75 2.0 55 18. 9 25 5. 7 22 4.0 177 30.7

1999 83 2.2 64 20. 4 37 6. 6 45 8.0 229 37.3

2000 30 1.2 27 10. 6 48 15.0 4 0.3 109 27.0

2001 20 1.4 51 22. 1 24 9. 0 4 1. 0 99 33. 6 Total 340 $9.9 298 $102. 5 167
$48.4 77 $13.5 882 $174. 5

Note: A number of jurisdictions or programs have received more than one type
of grant or several of the same type of grant since the implementation of
the federal drug court program. As such, the figures shown in this table
represent the number of drug court program grants awarded and not the number
of individual drug court programs that have received a DCPO grant. a
Planning grants are for those jurisdictions that are interested in
establishing drug court programs and are in the early planning stage for
that effort. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, DCPO limited the award of these
type of planning grants to Native American tribes and substituted the
availability of such grants to state/ local jurisdictions with planning-
related training initiative grants.

b Implementation grants are for those jurisdictions that have already made a
commitment to develop a drug court program and have already identified the
target population to be served and the case processing procedures that will
be used. c Enhancement grants are for those jurisdictions with established
drug court programs to improve or

enhance existing services. d Continuation grants were awarded to continue or
supplement drug court programs that previously

received implementation or enhancement grants in fiscal years 1996 or 1997.
e Total figure differs from sum of components due to rounding of actual
amounts.

Source: DOJ?s Office of Justice Programs, Office of the Controller.

28 DCPO also awarded technical assistance and training grants and provided
funding for evaluation of drug court programs between fiscal years 1995-
2001. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of administering
the fiscal year 2002 grant award program.

Timeline of NIJ?s Effort to Complete National

Appendi x VI

Drug Court Impact Evaluation Year Month/ day Actitivity

1997 December NIJ issues solicitation for national evaluation of drug court
programs 1998 March 13

Grant application deadline August 21

NIJ awards grant to RAND November 12

RAND requests DCPO to write letters to 14 DCPO- funded sites regarding site
visits for the national evaluation 1999

January 29 RAND submits written progress report to NIJ (no problems or
changes were noted)

January 31 Scheduled milestone for completion of site visits

February 16 RAND informs NIJ that it was still awaiting DCPO introductory
letter to 14 DCPO- funded sites

March 5 DCPO sent letter notifying 14 sites of the national evaluation

April 30 Scheduled milestone for completion of phase II design strategy

July 14 Site visits completed

July 30 Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or changes
were noted)

August 31 Scheduled milestone for completion of conceptual framework

November RAND provides evaluability assessment of 14 sites to NIJ noting
feasibility concerns

December 6 RAND requests conference with NIJ to discuss evaluability
assessment

2000 January 11

NIJ informs RAND that DCPO still wants impact evaluations on some of the 14
sites May 2

RAND submits conceptual framework for 14 sites to NIJ May 2- 3

NIJ and DCPO review the conceptual framework May 5

NIJ informs RAND that the report on the results of phase I must be submitted
prior to the submission of a phase II proposal

May 18 DCPO requests findings from RAND

May 22 RAND requests guidance about conceptual framework paper

June 27 RAND requests the first no- cost extension through September 30,
2000

July 16- 19 NIJ informed RAND that phase I findings should be submitted in
writing before RAND submits a proposal for

phase II. RAND informed NIJ that a report on phase I findings would be
completed by November 2000 July 20

RAND submits written progress report to NIJ noting their findings, an
alternative strategy, and their request for a no- cost extension to enable
RAND to bridge the time period between phase I and phase II

August 1 NIJ grants RAND its first no- cost extension through September 30,
2000

August 11 DCPO and NIJ inquire about the status of the phase I draft report.
NIJ reminds RAND of the original project

requirements for an impact evaluation in phase II

Year Month/ day Actitivity

2000 September 11 RAND inquired about whether the phase I grant would be
extended beyond September 30, 2000

September 12 NIJ asked RAND to complete the phase I report by September 30,
2000, and reiterated to RAND that

any proposals for phase II should address original solicitation objectives
September 19

NIJ gives RAND the option to (1) let the phase I grant end and prepare the
phase II proposal for a new grant or (2) extend the phase I project timeline
to allow time for review of a phase II proposal

September 27 RAND requested second no- cost extension

September 29 NIJ grants no- cost extension to RAND extending completion of
phase I until December 31, 2000. NIJ also

inquires about status of draft and reminds RAND that draft must be submitted
before a phase II proposal is accepted. RAND agreed

November 14- 18 RAND presented results from phase I at American Society of
Criminology Conference noting that the

phase I report would be available by the end of December December 8

In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that a phase I draft report
would be completed by the end of January 2001 (NIJ did not extend the grant)

2001 January 5 In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that the
phase I draft report would be completed in

February 2001 January 31

Written progress report submitted by RAND noting that a draft report will be
submitted to NIJ in February 2001 (no problems were noted)

February 12 RAND informs NIJ that a draft phase I report will be completed
in March 2001. NIJ grants third no- cost,

extension to RAND extending completion of phase I until May 31, 2001 to
allow for peer review of the forthcoming draft report

March 14 NIJ receives draft phase I report and submits draft to peer
reviewers

May 29 NIJ informs RAND that phase II plans are uncertain

June 22 NIJ sends peer review results to RAND and inquires as to when final
report could be expected.

NIJ provides RAND with specific instructions to eliminate the alternative
phase II proposal from the final phase I report noting that RAND's
alternative proposal was so different from the project objective that it
would be inappropriate to continue the effort July 22- 25

RAND meets with NIJ to discuss phase I effort and completion of final
report. RAND informs NIJ that the final report will be completed by the end
of July 2001

August 7 Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or changes
noted)

August 20 NIJ and RAND discuss completion of final report

September 18 RAND submits final phase I report to NIJ

October NIJ decides that phase II will not be initiated

Source: GAO- generated based on information provided by DCPO, NIJ and RAND

Appendi x VII

Comments from the Department of Justice Note: GAO comments supplementing
those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

See comment 1. See comment 2.

We did not reproduce the enclosure.

Appendi x VI II Comments from RAND

Appendi x IX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Laurie E. Ekstrand,
(202) 512- 2758 Daniel C. Harris, (202) 512- 8720 Staff

Charles Michael Johnson, Nettie Y. Mahone, Deborah L. Picozzi, Jerome T.
Acknowledgments Sandau, David P. Alexander, Douglas M. Sloane, and Shana B.
Wallace made key contributions to this report.

(440018)

GAO?s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to
help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO?s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents is through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains
abstracts and full- text files of GAO Reports and current reports and
testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Testimony Web site
features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and
phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts
and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in

Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512-
7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D. C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page i GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 1 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

A

Page 2 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 3 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 4 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 5 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 6 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 7 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 8 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 9 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 10 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 11 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 12 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 13 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 14 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 15 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 16 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 17 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 18 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 19 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 20 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 21 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 22 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 23 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix I

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 24 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 25 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 26 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 27 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix II

Appendix II Operating Drug Court Programs by Location as of December 31,
2001

Page 28 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 29 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix III

Page 30 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 31 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 32 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 33 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 34 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 35 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 36 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 37 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 38 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 39 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 40 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 41 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 42 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 43 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 44 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 45 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 46 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 47 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 48 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 49 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 50 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 51 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 52 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 53 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 54 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 55 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 56 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 57 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 58 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 59 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 60 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 61 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 62 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 63 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 64 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 65 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 66 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 67 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 68 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IV Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by Jurisdiction
as of December 31, 2001

Page 69 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 70 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix V

Page 71 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Timeline of NIJ?s Effort to Complete National Drug Court Impact
Evaluation

Page 72 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Page 73 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VII

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 74 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 75 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 76 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 77 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

The following are GAO comments on DOJ?s letter of April 3, 2002. GAO
Comments 1. In his reviews, Dr. Belenko noted that the long- term post-
program impacts of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes are less

clear- pointing out that the measurement of post- program outcomes other
than recidivism remains quite limited in the drug court evaluation
literature. He also noted that the evaluations varied in quality,
comprehensiveness, use of comparison groups, and types of the measures used
and that longer follow- up and better precision in equalizing the length of
follow- up between experimental and comparison groups are needed. 2. Dr.
Belenko noted in this review that the evaluations reviewed were primarily
process, as opposed to impact, evaluations. He also notedout that a
shortcoming of some of the drug court evaluations was a lack of

specificity about data collection time frames- pointing out that several
studies lacked a distinction between recidivism that occurs while an
offender is under drug court supervision and recidivism occurring after
program participation.

Page 78 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix VIII

Page 79 GAO- 02- 434 Drug Courts

Appendix IX

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***