Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to Address Drug-Related Crime
(Briefing Report, 05/22/95, GAO/GGD-95-159BR).

GAO provided information on drug courts, a new approach used to monitor
defendants' drug use, treatment, and behavior.

GAO found that: (1) in exchange for reduced charges, drug using
defendants can be diverted to drug courts where judges monitor their
progress through frequent status hearings; (2) drug court programs vary
in length, participant eligibility, funding, and other practices; (3) as
of March 1995, there were at least 37 drug courts operating nationwide;
(4) 33 drug courts have accepted over 20,000 defendants; (5) most drug
courts do not accept violent offenders; (6) drug courts have not been
operating long enough to determine their overall effectiveness; and (7)
although the 1994 Crime Act authorized $1 billion to support drug court
programs from fiscal year (FY) 1995 through FY 2000, Congress has
proposed repealing the drug court grant program.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-95-159BR
     TITLE:  Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to Address 
             Drug-Related Crime
      DATE:  05/22/95
   SUBJECT:  Crimes or offenses
             Courts (law)
             Drug treatment
             Federal grants
             Defendants
             Drug abuse
             Law enforcement
             Recidivism
             Offender rehabilitation
IDENTIFIER:  Dade County (FL)
             DOJ Corrections Options Program
             Federal Drug Court Grant Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.  Senate, and
the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

May 1995

DRUG COURTS - INFORMATION ON A NEW
APPROACH TO ADDRESS DRUG-RELATED
CRIME

GAO/GGD-95-159BR

Drug Courts


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
  CSAT - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  NIJ - National Institute of Justice
  OJP - Office of Justice Programs

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-260301

May 22, 1995

The Honorable Orrin G.  Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Joseph R.  Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable Henry J.  Hyde
Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

This briefing report provides information on drug courts,\1 a new
approach used by state and local governments to address drug-related
crime.  These courts monitor the treatment and behavior of drug-using
defendants. 

Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(the 1994 Crime Act) authorizes the award of federal grants for drug
courts.  The act requires that we assess the effectiveness and impact
of these grants and report to Congress by January 1, 1997.  To assist
Congress in its deliberations on whether to fund drug courts, we
developed this preliminary report.  Specifically, we gathered
information on drug courts in existence prior to the awarding of
grants under the 1994 Crime Act, assessed evaluations of these
courts, and reviewed the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
responsibilities and plans for implementing the federal drug court
grant program. 

During April and on May 11, 1995, we briefed the Committees on the
results of our work. 


--------------------
\1 Throughout this briefing report, we use the terms drug courts and
drug court programs interchangeably. 


   RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

In response to the deluge of drug cases since the late 1980s and the
cycle of recidivism (rearrest rates) common to drug offenders, some
state and local jurisdictions created drug courts, the majority of
which have been operating since 1993.  The main purpose of drug
courts is to use the authority of the court to reduce crime by
changing defendants' drug-using behavior.  In exchange for the
possibility of dismissed charges or reduced sentences, defendants are
diverted to drug courts.  Judges preside over drug court proceedings,
monitor the progress of defendants through frequent status hearings,
and prescribe sanctions and rewards as appropriate in collaboration
with prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others. 
Although there are basic elements common to many drug court programs,
they vary in terms of participant eligibility, length of the program,
penalties and rewards, and other practices.  The courts are supported
by a variety of local, state, federal, and private funds and
participant fees, according to the Drug Court Resource Center.\2

As of March 1995, there were at least 37 drug courts operating
nationwide, most of which had been fully operational for at least 9
months.  Thirty-three drug courts responding to our questionnaire
reported having accepted over 20,000 defendants, of whom a third had
completed their programs.  According to the Project Director of the
Drug Court Resource Center, none of the drug courts accept defendants
currently charged with a violent offense, and most do not accept
defendants with prior violent convictions.  However, at least one
drug court accepts defendants regardless of prior offenses.  (See
sect.  I for more general information on drug courts.)

We assessed six evaluations of five drug courts completed as of March
1995.  Although some evaluation results indicated that drug courts
may have some beneficial effects, limitations in their designs and
methodologies, as well as the relative newness of drug courts,
precluded firm conclusions about the overall impact of these
programs.  The evaluations showed mixed results in recidivism and
other defendant outcomes.  For example, two evaluations showed less
recidivism by drug court defendants.  However, three other
evaluations showed no significant differences in recidivism. 
Additionally, two evaluations of the same drug court showed
contrasting recidivism results.  (See sect.  II and app.  III for
more information on the evaluations we assessed.)

The 1994 Crime Act authorized the Attorney General to award and
administer discretionary grants for drug court programs.  A key
requirement of the act is that violent offenders are prohibited as
drug court participants.  The act authorized $1 billion from fiscal
years 1995 through 2000 to support drug court programs.  For fiscal
year 1995, $29 million was appropriated.  However, Congress has
proposed fiscal year 1995 budget cuts in a pending rescission bill. 
In addition, the House has passed legislation repealing the drug
court grant program authorized in the 1994 Crime Act. 

DOJ expects to award grants beginning in the summer of 1995.  The
1994 Crime Act also authorizes the Attorney General to provide for a
national evaluation of drug courts supported by federal grants.  DOJ
expects to complete the evaluation to assess the impact and
effectiveness of drug court grants in about 2 years.  (See sect.  III
for more information.)


--------------------
\2 The Bureau of Justice Assistance funds the Drug Court Resource
Center.  The Resource Center began operating October 1, 1994, under
the direction of The American University in partnership with the
National Center for State Courts and the National Consortium of
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime Programs.  The Resource Center
assists state and local justice system officials in planning,
implementing, managing, and evaluating drug courts.  It also acts as
a clearinghouse and provides technical assistance and other services
to jurisdictions interested in developing or expanding drug courts. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In preparation for our 1997 mandated study, we initiated a
preliminary review of drug court programs.  Our objectives were to
determine

  the number, location, and key elements of drug courts;

  the results and validity of evaluations of drug courts; and

  DOJ's responsibilities and plans for implementing statutory
     requirements for the federal drug court grant program. 

The Drug Court Resource Center, which is based at The American
University, Washington, D.C., provided us with general information on
drug courts.  To obtain more current information, we sent a
questionnaire to 37 drug courts.  We received responses from 33 drug
courts as of March 31, 1995.  We did not verify the accuracy of the
data provided to us by the Drug Court Resource Center and drug
courts.  In addition, we attended a January 1995 national training
conference for drug court professionals in Las Vegas, NV, and visited
drug courts in Las Vegas and Washington, D.C. 

To determine the results and assess the validity of evaluations of
drug courts, we obtained 11 drug court evaluations completed as of
March 1, 1995, from the Drug Court Resource Center.  These
evaluations were done by a variety of sources, including independent
researchers, county officials, and court representatives.  We
reviewed them and assessed the evaluative methodology used and the
validity of reported findings.  We did not analyze the reported
results of three of them because they reported outcome data for drug
court defendants without any reference to comparison or control
groups.  We were unable to assess the validity of one because it did
not include a description of the methodology used.  Two dealt with
one drug court and were assessed as one evaluation because one was a
follow-up to the other and contained the same methodology and
findings. 

To determine DOJ's responsibilities and plans for implementing the
federal grant program, we met with representatives of the Office of
Justice Programs, DOJ.  We held discussions and reviewed documents
regarding their responsibilities and plans for implementing the
federally supported drug court program.  We also obtained drug court
funding information from the Department of Health and Human Services'
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 

Our review was done from January 1995 to April 1995 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In April 1995, we provided a draft of this report for comment to the
Attorney General and the Project Director of the Drug Court Resource
Center. 

On April 21, 1995, we discussed the report with the Project Director
of the Drug Court Resource Center.  On May 5, 1995, we also discussed
the report with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and other
officials from DOJ's Office of Justice Programs.  These officials
generally agreed with the information presented in the report and
provided comments that we incorporated as appropriate. 

DOJ officials said the report was positive, informative, and will be
helpful to drug court professionals.  They explained that there is no
universal model for drug courts, and as a result, each drug court
operates differently due to local needs and conditions.  Similarly,
the Project Director of the Drug Court Resource Center said that the
information presented in the report was comprehensive, accurate, and
objective. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

We are sending copies of this briefing report to other interested
congressional committees and Members and the Attorney General. 
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. 

The major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix
IV.  If you have any questions about this report, please call me on
(202) 512-8777. 

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration
 of Justice Issues


Briefing Section I DRUG COURTS
============================================================== Letter 


   TYPES OF DRUG COURTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In the late 1980s, state and local criminal courts were inundated
with drug cases.  One response to this challenge was the creation of
drug courts, a relatively recent grassroots movement to deal with
drug-related crime and drug-using defendants. 

According to DOJ, two main types of drug courts have evolved, those
that (1) expedite the processing of drug cases and (2) use
court-monitored drug treatment to attempt to achieve changes in
defendants' drug-using behavior.  In addition, some drug courts
combine these two types. 

The 1994 Crime Act authorizes grants for those drug courts that have
programs offering court supervised drug treatment.  The act does not
authorize grants for courts designed solely to expedite the
processing of drug cases.  This briefing report provides information
on drug treatment courts. 

Courts offering court-monitored drug treatment are referred to as
"drug treatment courts" or simply "drug courts." Although there is no
standard definition applicable to drug treatment courts, the National
Association of Drug Court Professionals\3 defines them as follows: 

     "A Drug Court is a special court given the responsibility to
     handle cases involving less serious drug using-offenders through
     a supervision and treatment program.  These programs include
     frequent drug testing, judicial and probation supervision, drug
     counseling, treatment, educational opportunities, and the use of
     sanctions and incentives."

One of the first drug courts to employ drug treatment as an integral
part of the processing of drug felonies is located in Dade County
(Miami), FL, and began operations in June 1989.  This court became a
model for other jurisdictions that implemented drug courts. 

Although drug courts share certain common elements such as
court-monitored treatment, the courts are uniquely designed to meet
local needs and can vary considerably in the way they operate. 
Organizationally, drug courts generally are distinct parts of trial
courts. 


--------------------
\3 This is the principal organization of professionals involved in
the development of treatment-oriented drug courts.  Its members
include judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment service
providers, educators, researchers, and community leaders. 


   DRUG COURT APPROACHES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      DRUG COURT APPROACHES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

According to a report provided by the Drug Court Resource Center,
drug courts have generally taken two approaches to processing cases: 
(1) deferred prosecution and (2) postadjudication.  In the deferred
prosecution approach, shortly after being charged, defendants waive
their right to a speedy trial and enter a treatment program. 
Defendants who fail to complete the treatment program have their
charges adjudicated.  Defendants who complete the treatment program
are not prosecuted further or have their charges dismissed.  This
approach is intended to capitalize on the trauma of arrest and offers
defendants the opportunity to obtain treatment and avoid the
possibility of a felony conviction. 

In the postadjudication approach, defendants are tried and convicted,
but their sentences are deferred or pronounced and incarceration is
suspended until they complete or withdraw from the treatment program. 
This approach provides an incentive for the defendant to rehabilitate
because progress toward rehabilitation is factored into the
sentencing determination. 

Appendix I presents examples of how cases are processed under the two
drug court approaches. 


   PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY
   CRITERIA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY
      CRITERIA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

According to the Drug Court Resource Center, drug courts generally
accept defendants with substance abuse problems who are currently
charged with drug possession and/or other nonviolent offenses such as
property crimes.  Some drug courts accept defendants who have prior
convictions, and others do not. 

The Project Director of the Drug Court Resource Center also pointed
out that drug courts do not accept defendants currently charged with
a violent offense.  The Project Director further commented that most
drug courts do not accept defendants with prior violent offenses. 
However, at least one drug court accepts defendants regardless of
prior offenses possibly including defendants with prior convictions
for violent crimes.  Under the 1994 Crime Act, federal grants cannot
be awarded to any drug court that allows either current or past
violent offenders to participate in its program. 


   DRUG COURT PLAYERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      DRUG COURT PLAYERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

According to a DOJ-funded report on the first national drug court
conference,\4 judicial leadership is the foundation on which the
overall drug court approach is most often built.  A jurisdiction's
trial court provides the leadership, authority, and management
capacity to enable the drug court to operate.  The drug court is
headed by a judge whose role is generally expanded beyond normal
court duties to include active involvement in monitoring the status
of defendants in the treatment program.  The judge's duties may
include conducting hearings, reviewing treatment progress reports,
issuing bench warrants, and deciding who may enter the program and
who should be terminated considering recommendations of prosecutors,
public defenders, and treatment providers. 

The judiciary alone, however, cannot successfully implement and
operate a drug court, according to the conference report.  Rather, a
drug court requires a special collaborative effort among judges,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and related criminal justice agencies
along with treatment providers and other social services and
community organizations.  This collaborative effort is based on local
needs and the targeted population being served and may differ
considerably among drug courts. 

Specifically, drug courts create new and different roles for
prosecutors and defense attorneys.  In most drug courts these players
are not adversaries in the traditional sense but rather are to work
in concert with the court for the sole purpose of helping defendants
become drug free.  This nonadversarial role is significant because
the court does not arbitrate in the usual fashion and has the
opportunity to address addiction-related issues.  Further, drug
courts place the defendant in the unique role of being held publicly
accountable for his or her actions. 


--------------------
\4 Justice and Treatment Innovation:  The Drug Court Movement, A
Working Paper of the First National Drug Court Conference, December
1993, John S.  Goldkamp, October 1994. 


   COMMON ELEMENTS OF DRUG COURT
   PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      COMMON ELEMENTS OF DRUG
      COURT PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

According to the Drug Court Resource Center, in most drug courts,
treatment is designed to usually last at least 1 year and is
administered on an outpatient basis with limited inpatient treatment
as needed to address special detoxification or relapse situations.\5
These courts operate with the philosophy that because drug addiction
is a disease relapses can occur, and that the court must respond with
progressive sanctions and/or enhance treatment rather than
immediately terminate a participant. 

The central element of all drug court programs is attendance at the
regularly scheduled status hearings at which the drug court judge
monitors the progress of participants.  Monitoring is based on
treatment provider reports on urine test results that detect drug
use, attendance at counseling, etc.  The judge reinforces progress
and addresses noncompliance with program requirements.  The primary
objective of the status hearing is to keep the defendant in
treatment. 


--------------------
\5 These programs recognize that some individuals will require a
longer period to complete the program. 


   PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

Overall, according to the Drug Court Resource Center, treatment
program requirements are more demanding than the applicable sanction
received through traditional adjudication.  Most drug court programs
require that defendants attend status hearings, participate in
counseling sessions, and submit to urine tests with the goal of
becoming drug free.  Some programs focus on special classes of
defendants such as women.  Many programs also provide support
services such as public health services; assistance with housing,
food, and child care; vocational training; and job placement. 


   TREATMENT PHASES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      TREATMENT PHASES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

Treatment services are generally divided into three phases:  (1)
detoxification, (2) stabilization, and (3) aftercare.  First, the
defendant's physical dependence on drugs is eliminated through
detoxification.  Acupuncture is sometimes used as an adjunct to
treatment in the detoxification phase.  According to the Project
Director of the Drug Court Resource Center, 9 of 20 drug courts
responding to the Center's 1994 survey indicated that they used
acupuncture.  Second, the defendant's psychological craving for the
drugs is treated during stabilization.  Frequent group and/or
individual counseling sessions are employed during this phase.  And
third, aftercare focuses on helping the defendant obtain education or
job training, find a job, and remain drug free. 


   PROGRAM SANCTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROGRAM SANCTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11.1

Sanctions for failing to abide by program rules can include (1)
verbal admonition from the judge; (2) demotion to an earlier stage of
the program; (3) incarceration for several days or weeks, increasing
with the number and severity of the violations; and (4) more frequent
status hearings, treatment sessions, or urine tests.  Many programs
also use graduated sanctions, increasing the severity of the sanction
with subsequent violations of program rules. 

DOJ also pointed out that most drug courts use sanctions not to
simply punish inappropriate behavior but to augment the treatment
process.  For example, many drug courts will place a defendant in
residential treatment if he or she is unable to achieve satisfactory
progress in an outpatient setting.  In addition, many drug courts
incarcerate defendants for the purpose of detoxification rather than
detain them for inappropriate behavior. 


   REASONS FOR TERMINATING
   DEFENDANTS FROM THE PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      REASONS FOR TERMINATING
      DEFENDANTS FROM THE PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12.1

Drug courts use various criteria for ending a defendant's
participation in the program before completion.  These may include a
new felony offense; multiple failures to comply with program
requirements, such as not attending status hearings or treatment
sessions; and a pattern of positive urine tests.  According to DOJ,
many drug courts do not terminate defendants for a new drug
possession offense. 

Before terminating a defendant for continuing to use drugs, drug
courts will use an array of treatment services and available
sanctions.  There are no uniform standards for the number of failed
urine tests and failures to attend treatment sessions that result in
a participant being terminated that apply to all programs.  Each drug
court sets its own standards.  Relapses are expected and the extent
to which noncompliance results in terminations varies from program to
program. 

Generally, the drug court judge makes the decision to terminate, but
the prosecutor or treatment provider can recommend the termination. 
Once a defendant is terminated, he or she will be referred for
adjudication or sentencing. 


   PROGRAM GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROGRAM GRADUATION
      REQUIREMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13.1

Drug courts typically require defendants to complete a treatment
program in order to graduate.  Some impose other conditions
defendants must meet after treatment.  These could include remaining
drug free and not being arrested for a specified period of time,
paying restitution, being employed full-time, or performing community
service. 

For example, the Seattle, WA, drug court requires that a defendant
complete all phases of the program to graduate.  However, the
Beaumont, TX, drug court requires that, in addition to completing the
treatment program, the defendant maintain sobriety for a specified
time and participate in education and vocational training and/or be
working full-time. 


   EFFECTS OF PROGRAM GRADUATION
   ON CASE OUTCOME
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      EFFECTS OF PROGRAM
      GRADUATION ON CASE OUTCOME
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14.1

In many jurisdictions, completion of the drug court program leads to
a dismissal of charges or cessation of prosecution.  In others, the
guilty plea can be stricken, the defendant can be sentenced to
probation in lieu of incarceration, or the defendant's probation can
be shortened. 

DOJ pointed out that some drug courts will seal all case records,
including arrests, when defendants complete the program.  The sealing
of records is particularly significant when attempting to measure the
impact of drug court programs at a later date. 


   NUMBER OF DRUG COURTS STARTED,
   1989-1994
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  One drug court was
   started in March 1995.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO and Drug Court
   Resource Center data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      NUMBER OF DRUG COURTS
      STARTED, 1989-1994
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15.1

According to the Drug Court Resource Center, as of March 1995, there
were at least 37 drug courts operating across the country.\6 Of these
drug courts, 29 had been fully operational for at least 9 months, and
8 others had been operating for a lesser period. 

The number of drug courts steadily increased from 1991 to 1994, with
substantial increases since 1993.  As of March 1995, 24 jurisdictions
were developing drug courts.  Another eight jurisdictions had
exhibited interest in starting drug courts by initiating feasibility
studies. 

Appendix II lists the number of drug courts in operation and being
developed. 


--------------------
\6 Because of the absence of any official requirement to report their
existence to a central organization, additional drug courts may
exist. 


   DRUG COURT LOCATIONS AS OF
   MARCH 1995
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Drug Court Resource
   Center data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      DRUG COURT LOCATIONS AS OF
      MARCH 1995
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16.1

According to the Drug Court Resource Center, the 37 drug courts in
operation as of March 1995 are located in 15 states and the District
of Columbia.  The largest number of drug courts are located in
Florida, with 10, followed by California, with 6.  There are two drug
courts in each of six states, and there is one drug court in each of
the remaining eight states and the District of Columbia.  The
specific location of each drug court is shown in appendix II. 


   DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS' STATUS
   AS OF MARCH 1995
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :17



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   N = 20,421

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note 1:  Based on responses
   from 33 drug courts.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note 2:  Percentages do not add
   to 100 percent due to rounding.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO questionnaires.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS'
      STATUS AS OF MARCH 1995
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :17.1

Data obtained from 33 of 37 drug courts responding to our
questionnaire showed that since inception of the first drug court in
1989, 20,421 persons have participated in drug courts.  Of these,
7,235 participants have graduated, and 7,595 are currently in the
programs.  The remaining participants did not complete the programs. 
Generally, when participants do not complete drug court programs it
is because they were terminated, voluntarily withdrew, or died. 
Based on the data received, these totaled 5,591.\7

The number of participants currently in each of these drug court
programs varied widely, ranging from a low of 1 participant in Santa
Ana, CA, a new drug court,\8 to a high of 1,200 participants in
Miami, FL, one of the oldest drug courts.  The median number of
participants in these drug court programs is 105. 

It should be noted that many of the drug courts have been operating
for less than a year and would not yet have graduates.  As shown,
more than one-third of the total participants are currently enrolled
in drug court programs. 


--------------------
\7 We calculated the number (5,591) of participants not completing
the programs by subtracting the number (7,235) of graduates and the
number (7,595) of participants currently in the programs from the
total number (20,421) of participants in the programs since their
inception. 

\8 At the time of our review, Orange County, CA, had filed for
bankruptcy and curtailed resources for its drug court. 


   FUNDING SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :18



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

According to the Drug Court Resource Center Project Director, drug
courts generally piece together funding from a variety of sources. 
Information reported to the Drug Court Resource Center by 15 drug
courts showed that these sources included local taxes and surcharges,
state alcohol and drug agency funds, private foundation monies,
participant fees, and federal grants. 

Some drug courts have developed innovative funding approaches.  For
example, a drug court judge from Orange County, CA, told us that when
the county filed for bankruptcy, it cut back services necessary for
the drug court operation.  The judge said that he was forming a
nonprofit corporation to try to provide funding for the drug court
outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. 

Until the 1994 Crime Act, there was no federal grant program
specifically designed for drug courts.  However, some drug courts
have received federal grants and technical assistance from the
Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment (CSAT) and DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). 
According to CSAT, it has provided or plans to provide an estimated
$15 million in assistance to some drug courts.  Of the $15 million,
about $6 million is for a drug court demonstration project for the
District of Columbia Superior Court. 

BJA could not provide us with complete information on DOJ grants used
in support of drug courts.  According to a BJA official, "drug
courts" was not a specific grant category that grantees could
designate for funding.  However, this official commented that BJA is
aware that DOJ grant funds provided under other grant categories such
as "corrections options" have been used in support of drug courts,
and that three drug courts had received $2.5 million from the
Corrections Options program.\9


--------------------
\9 The Corrections Options program assists states with design,
development, and implementation of innovative alternatives to
traditional modes of incarceration. 


   PARTICIPANT FEES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :19



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PARTICIPANT FEES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :19.1

We obtained data (based on our questionnaire and information provided
by the Drug Court Resource Center) from 34 drug courts on fees
charged to participants in drug court programs.  Twenty-three of the
34 drug courts reported that they charged fees, and 11 reported that
they did not.  Insufficient data on fee amounts actually collected
precluded us from determining the extent to which drug courts relied
on participant fees as a funding source. 

Of the 23 drug courts charging participant fees, the amounts charged
for the total cost of treatment ranged from $20 to $2,500.  One drug
court reported charging fees on a sliding scale from $60 to $300 for
treatment based on a defendant's ability to pay, while another
reported charging on a sliding scale from $500 to $2,500.  At least
nine courts responded that they charged fees ranging from $200 to
$350. 

Several drug courts reported applying participant fees to counseling
and treatment costs, drug testing costs, and other program expenses. 
In addition, DOJ commented that many treatment providers believe
participant fees are a useful therapeutic tool and should be charged
regardless of the extent to which fees are needed to cover program
costs. 


   COST SAVINGS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :20



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      COST SAVINGS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :20.1

Drug courts have reported information to the Drug Court Resource
Center on savings that they believe their programs have achieved in
the costs of court and other criminal justice system operations. 

One of the larger categories of savings reported by drug courts was
jail costs avoided, i.e., the estimated costs of incarcerating a
typical drug court defendant that would be expected to incur if
he/she were not participating in a drug court program.  One court
estimated savings of $5,400 per drug court participant, and another
estimated savings of $2,566 to $5,185. 

Another drug court claimed a savings of $2 million over a 3-year
period resulting from drug court participants spending fewer days in
custody and the consequent ability of the county to rent unused jail
cells to other law enforcement agencies.  Still another drug court
estimated it had saved about $875,500 in jail costs for its program
but did not specify the time frame. 

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals noted that drug
court programs are much less costly than the incarceration of
drug-using offenders.  The Association reported that incarceration of
drug-using offenders ranges from $20,000 to $50,000 annually, and the
cost to build a prison cell is $80,000 to $90,000.  It also said that
drug courts cost less than $1,500 annually for each offender. 

Some drug courts identified savings such as reduced caseloads of
other trial judges not in the drug court program.  In addition, some
drug courts claimed savings in court-appointed attorney fees, reduced
probation office caseloads, and costs of prosecution, arrests, and
police overtime. 

We did not verify this information, and further analysis of all drug
court costs is essential to fully understanding the benefits of these
programs. 


Briefing Section II EVALUATIONS OF
DRUG COURTS
============================================================== Letter 


   DO DRUG COURTS MAKE A
   DIFFERENCE? 
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :21



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In evaluating the effectiveness of drug courts, the basic question
is:  Do drug courts make a difference?  Specifically, do defendants
who successfully complete drug court programs exhibit reduced
recidivism, decreased drug use, and other socially beneficial effects
as a result of participating in drug court programs when compared to
their counterparts, i.e., control groups who were not exposed to the
same drug court treatment? 

Based on evaluations we reviewed, drug courts generally may have some
beneficial effects.  However, because of the nature of the study
designs and the short periods of time elapsed between treatment and
measurement of outcomes (drug courts are relatively new), firm
conclusions cannot be drawn about the effects of drug courts. 

It is both difficult and costly to conduct program evaluations that
can measure program effects.  Although the strongest design involves
assembling and randomly assigning defendants to control groups
(comparing drug courts versus traditional courts, for example), such
studies raise serious logistical and ethical issues.  Additionally,
according to the Project Director of the Drug Court Resource Center,
control groups cannot be used properly unless a drug court is
originally designed to define such groups. 

An alternative approach is to design studies allowing the researcher
to create comparable groups from existing programs, through the use
of various analytical techniques.  However, even such studies are
often made more difficult by the fact that existing programs change
over time, resulting in individuals at the end of the study period
being exposed to different treatments than those at the beginning. 
Also, different locations of the same program may have very different
implementation needs, making it more difficult to compare such
programs. 


   GAO ASSESSED DRUG COURT
   EVALUATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :22



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

We assessed six evaluations that compared performance outcomes for
drug court defendants to the experiences of other defendants, i.e.,
previous divertees or unsuccessful drug court defendants or
defendants who had never been in a drug court.  In order to determine
whether a drug court has an impact on its participants, an evaluation
should compare outcomes of drug court defendants to those of other
groups of similar defendants who are not in drug courts. 

The six evaluations covered five drug courts and varied considerably
in terms of the study designs, types of outcomes measured, and scope
of analyses performed on the available information.  Our assessment
indicates that the evaluations differed particularly in terms of the
validity of the designs, which determine the extent to which the
reader is able to draw conclusions from any findings.  Of the six
studies: 

  two studies had fairly strong designs; of these, one provided some
     evidence of an effect of the drug court program, and the other
     study's results were too preliminary to draw any conclusions;

  two studies had designs with more serious problems; of these, one
     suggested possible effects of the program, and the other was
     inconclusive; and

  two studies had design weaknesses that prevented any conclusions
     about the effects of the program. 

The major outcome measure used, in five of the six evaluations, was
recidivism (rearrest rates).  To a lesser degree, recidivism-related
measures were also used, such as length of time before rearrest and
days spent in custody for felony offenses.  We focused on these
measures in this report because they provided the strongest evidence
for the long-term effect of the drug court programs, even though
other measures were used in these studies. 


   EVALUATION OUTCOMES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :23



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Two of the six evaluations were well-designed.  However, the results
in terms of recidivism outcomes were mixed.  One of the evaluations
showed that drug court defendants had significantly lower rearrest
rates than defendants not in drug court, and that they spent fewer
days in custody for felony offenses (app.  III, evaluation 1).  This
evaluation also showed that drug court defendants had a lower rate of
failures-to-appear for required court hearings than did other
defendants.  However, the other evaluation, with preliminary
information only, showed no significant difference so far in rearrest
rates between drug court defendants and defendants who were not in
the drug court (app.  III, evaluation 2). 

Although these evaluations have strong study designs and one
indicates some beneficial effects on defendants resulting from the
drug court programs, the evidence does not permit firm conclusions
about the effects of the drug courts studied.  Additionally, for one
of the evaluations, insufficient time had elapsed to provide firmer
evidence of program effect. 

Of the next two evaluations, both of the same drug court, one
provided some suggestive evidence of program effect.  It showed lower
recidivism by drug court defendants and longer time before rearrest
(app.  III, evaluation 3).  The other generally showed no difference
in recidivism rates (app.  III, evaluation 4).  Design problems made
it difficult to attribute these findings to the programs.  There are
too many potential differences between the drug court participants
and the groups to which they were compared to develop strong
conclusions. 

The final two evaluations did not provide reliable evidence
concerning the effects of the programs.  One showed no substantial
difference in recidivism between drug court defendants and defendants
who left the drug court (app.  III, evaluation 5).  The other
evaluation measured defendants' drug abstinence and failure-to-appear
rates and showed positive results for drug court defendants as
compared to defendants terminated from the drug court (app.  III,
evaluation 6).  Because the study design did not control for a number
of factors, such as motivation and susceptibility to treatment, these
evaluations do not permit conclusions to be drawn about the effects
of the programs. 

Appendix III contains further information on each of these
evaluations. 


Briefing Section III FEDERAL DRUG
COURT GRANT PROGRAM
============================================================== Letter 


   THE 1994 CRIME ACT
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :24



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      THE 1994 CRIME ACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :24.1

Beginning in fiscal year 1995, DOJ may provide jurisdictions with
drug court grants.  Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) authorizes the Attorney
General to award discretionary drug court grants to states, units of
local government, Indian tribal governments, and state and local
courts.  Grants may be awarded to drug court programs when a judge
continuously supervises the progress of nonviolent offenders with
substance abuse problems. 

The act requires the Attorney General to issue regulations to ensure
that jurisdictions receiving drug court grants to support their
programs do not allow violent offenders to participate.  It defines a
violent offender as a person who is charged with or convicted of an
offense involving a firearm, dangerous weapon, death, serious bodily
injury, or force; or who has one or more prior convictions for a
violent felony crime. 

Drug court programs must also integrate a number of judicial
sanctions and treatment services.  Specifically, the act requires
programs to include (1) mandatory periodic testing for the use of
addictive substances; (2) substance abuse treatment; (3) diversion,
probation, or other supervised releases with the possibility of
prosecution, confinement, or incarceration when participants do not
comply with program requirements or fail to show satisfactory
progress; and (4) program and aftercare services, such as relapse
prevention, health care, education, vocational training, job
placement, housing placement, and child care. 


   FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DRUG COURTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :25



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DRUG
      COURTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :25.1

The 1994 Crime Act authorized a total of $1 billion for fiscal years
1995 through 2000 to support drug court programs.  Although the act
authorized $100 million for fiscal year 1995, DOJ's fiscal year 1995
Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-317) included only $29 million for
the drug court program.  However, Congress has proposed fiscal year
1995 budget cuts for the drug court program.  On March 16, 1995, the
House passed H.R.  1158, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 1995, which rescinds $27.75 million for the drug court
program.  During its consideration of H.R.  1158, the Senate reduced
the rescission to $17.1 million.  On April 6, 1995, the Senate passed
its version of the bill and requested a conference with the House. 
The House and Senate conferees began May 3, 1995, to try to reconcile
the separate provisions of the bill. 

The President's fiscal year 1996 budget requests $150 million for
drug court grants.  However, H.R.  667 (The Violent Crime
Incarceration Act of 1995) passed by the House of Representatives on
February 10, 1995, would amend Title V of the 1994 Crime Act and in
doing so would repeal the 1994 Crime Act's drug court discretionary
grant provisions.  On February 22, 1995, H.R.  667 was referred to
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 


   DOJ'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DRUG
   COURTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :26



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

DOJ recognizes that no single model exists for an effective drug
court.  Consequently, DOJ plans to maintain flexibility in awarding
grants to programs that use a variety of approaches to coordinate
drug treatment and persuade offenders to abstain from drugs with the
goal of becoming drug free.  In addition, given the great diversity
in the structure and operation of state and local courts and criminal
justice systems, DOJ plans to allow jurisdictions to tailor local
initiatives to best suit their needs and local conditions. 

DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has overall responsibility for
the new federal drug court program, including policy setting.  To
carry out this responsibility, OJP has hired an acting director and
policy analyst to staff its Drug Court Program Office.  In addition,
BJA, an office of OJP, recently established a Drug Court Program
Office to manage and monitor drug court program grants, according to
an OJP official.  BJA has hired four people to staff this office. 

Since November 1994, OJP and BJA staffs have worked together to
develop program guidelines and application materials.\10

Currently, these staffs are considering the most appropriate and
effective ways of providing technical assistance to federally
supported drug courts, operating drug courts, and related federal
projects to be funded with other fiscal year 1995 resources.  The
level and source of funding to support this technical assistance is
also under review. 

OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is responsible for funding
a national evaluation of drug court program impacts.  This evaluation
will assess whether federally supported drug court programs have
helped their participants to break the cycle of substance abuse and
crime.  It will also assess the cost-effectiveness of these programs. 

NIJ is also responsible for ensuring that drug court programs use
part of their grants to conduct process evaluations.  These are aimed
at determining, among other things, if the drug court is achieving
its objectives, if it was implemented as originally intended, and
whether major changes are appropriate.  They will also examine how
drug courts affect the rest of the court system and other elements of
the criminal justice system. 


--------------------
\10 In March 1995, DOJ published Drug Court Grant Program Guidelines
and Application Information. 


   FISCAL YEAR 1995 DRUG COURT
   GRANT PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :27



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      FISCAL YEAR 1995 DRUG COURT
      GRANT PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :27.1

If Congress does not rescind the fiscal year 1995 appropriation, DOJ
plans to award grants for planning, implementing, and improving or
enhancing drug court programs.  Eligible applicants may apply only
for one type of grant.  Assuming no rescission is enacted, of the $29
million appropriated for fiscal year 1995, DOJ plans to award up to

  100 planning grants for not more than $35,000 each to jurisdictions
     interested in establishing drug courts,

  10 implementation grants for not more than $1 million each to
     jurisdictions that have identified their target populations and
     case processing procedures,

  3 additional implementation grants for not more than $2 million to
     larger jurisdictions with populations exceeding 1 million, and

  20 improvement and enhancement grants for not more than $1 million
     to jurisdictions that have already established drug courts. 

Federal grants for each drug court program will be 75 percent of
program costs.  The grantees will be required to provide cash to fund
the remaining 25 percent. 

Applications are due by May 23, 1995.  Then, OJP and BJA staffs will
focus on screening and processing qualified applications for
potential grant awards, pending final congressional action on the
fiscal year 1995 budget rescission.  If the current deadline for
filing drug court applications does not change, the first grants are
expected to be awarded in the summer of 1995. 


   EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
   FEDERALLY FUNDED DRUG COURTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :28



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Evaluating effectiveness is a critical element of the federal drug
court program.  The 1994 Crime Act authorizes the Attorney General to
carry out or make arrangements for evaluations of programs that
receive discretionary program grants.  The act also mandates us to
study and assess the effectiveness and impact of these discretionary
grants and report to the Congress by January 1, 1997. 

OJP program guidelines require recipients of drug court grants to
cooperate with a national evaluation team.  The evaluation will be
aimed at measuring program impact primarily through the use of the
following criteria: 

  reduction in recidivism rates of program participants,

  maintenance of acceptable treatment completion rates,

  decreased participant drug use, and

  maintenance of a cost-effective program. 

NIJ is responsible for overseeing the national evaluation.  The
evaluation will focus on treatment and its impact and is expected to
take at least 2 years to complete.  At the time of our review, NIJ
was developing the solicitation for proposals to conduct the
evaluation. 

Program guidelines also require each drug court grant recipient to
conduct process evaluations of their programs.  For these
evaluations, grantees are expected to collect descriptive information
on the role of drug court players, potential eligible population, and
participant program characteristics.  Grantees will also be asked to
collect information on program procedures used to identify and screen
eligible offenders, accept and assess offenders, respond to relapses,
manage and monitor cases, and discharge and refer participants. 


FLOWCHART OF TWO DRUG COURT
APPROACHES
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Judges may reward progress and impose sanctions for noncompliance
with program requirements. 

   Source:  Drug Court Resource
   Center and GAO analysis of
   selected drug court program
   descriptions.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


NUMBER AND LOCATION OF DRUG COURTS
IN OPERATION AND BEING DEVELOPED
AS OF MARCH 1995
========================================================== Appendix II


                                  In    About to
Location                   operation       start     Planned
------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Alabama
 Mobile                            1
Arizona
 Phoenix                           1
Arkansas
 Little Rock                       1
California
 Bakersfield                       1
 East Bay Corridor                                         1
 El Monte                        1\a
 Los Angeles                       1
 Oakland                           1
 Riverside                                                 1
 Sacramento                                                1
 Santa Ana                       1\a
 San Bernardino                  1\a                       1
 San Francisco                                 1
Connecticut
 Hartford                                                  1
Colorado
 Denver                            1
Delaware
 Wilmington                        1
District of Columbia
 Washington                        1
Florida
 Bartow                          1\a
 Crestview                         1
 Ft. Lauderdale                    1
 Gainesville                       1
 Jacksonville                    1\a
 Key West                          1
 Miami                             1
 Orlando                                                   1
 Panama City                                               1
 Pensacola                         1                       1
 Tallahassee                       1
 Tampa                             1
Georgia
 Atlanta                                                   1
Hawaii
 Honolulu                                                  1
Illinois
 Chicago                           1
Indiana
 Gary                                                      1
Kansas
 Wichita                                                   1
Kentucky
 Louisville                        1
Maryland
 Baltimore                       2\a
Massachusetts
 Dorchester                                    1
Michigan
 Kalamazoo                         1
 St. Joseph                        1
Missouri
 Kansas City                       1
Nevada
 Las Vegas                         1
 Reno                            1\a
New Mexico
 Las Cruces                                    1
New York
 Rochester                                   1\b
Ohio
 Akron                                                     1
 Cincinnati                                    1
 Cleveland                                                 1
 Sandusky                                                  1
Oregon
 Eugene                            1
 Portland                          1
South Carolina
 Columbia                                                  1
Texas
 Austin                            1
 Beaumont                          1
 Fort Worth                                                1
Utah
 Salt Lake City                                            1
Washington
 Seattle                           1
 Tacoma                          1\a
 Spokane                                                   1
============================================================
Total                             37           5          19
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Drug courts in operation less than 9 months.  Includes one of the
two Baltimore drug courts. 

\b In commenting on a draft of this report, the Project Director of
the Drug Court Resource Center told us that a drug court in Rochester
began operating on a pilot basis in early 1995. 

Source:  Drug Court Resource Center data. 


OUTCOMES REPORTED IN AND GAO'S
ASSESSMENT OF EVALUATIONS OF FIVE
DRUG COURTS
========================================================= Appendix III


   EVALUATION 1:  F.I.R.S.T. 
   OAKLAND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.1

Drug use defendants granted admission to a diversion program. 
Admission requirements changed during the course of the study. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.2

Comparison of 110 defendants in a program with a similar group of 110
defendants in a different program a year earlier. 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.3

Drug court participants referred in January and February of 1991;
earlier group referred in January 1990 through March of 1990.  The
report contained a 3-year follow-up study. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.4

(1)Felony rearrests:  Drug court defendants had a lower average rate
of felony rearrests per defendants (0.75) than had previous divertees
(1.33). 

(2)Days in custody for felony offenses:  Drug court defendants, on
average, spent fewer days in custody per defendant (44) than had
previous divertees (78). 

(3)Bench warrants:  Drug court defendants, on average, had fewer
bench warrants issued for failures to appear at court hearings (0.67)
than had previous divertees (1.1). 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.5

There were some questions concerning the comparability of the two
groups, as well as the eligibility requirements for the two programs. 
(The report stated that eligibility requirements were relaxed for the
drug court program participants in order to obtain a broader group
for comparative purposes.) In spite of these concerns, the evaluation
suggested some fairly strong evidence of program success after 3
years. 


   EVALUATION 2:  MARICOPA COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.1

Offenders sentenced to probation for first-time drug possession
convictions. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.2

Random assignment to four groups: 

(1)No drug testing, frequent visits (n=approximately 154). 

(2)Monthly random drug testing, occasional visits (n=approximately
154). 

(3)Biweekly scheduled drug testing, limited visits (n=approximately
154). 

(4)Drug court, with testing and treatment supervised by a probation
officer (n=177). 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.3

Participants in program between March 1992 and April 1993.  Current
data reported only preliminary findings after 6 months. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.4

(1)Rearrest rates:  No statistically significant differences (16.95
percent for the drug court group vs.  15.37 percent for others). 

(2)Rates of technical probation violations:  Drug court group had
lower rates than those of others (7.9 percent vs.  11.9 percent). 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.5

Although the evaluation design was quite strong, the results were
preliminary; insufficient time had elapsed to provide a firm
indication of program effect.  Future comparisons may be complicated
by the fact that the drug court sample had lower rates of reported
history of prior marijuana use.  Otherwise, the control groups
(groups 1-3) were quite similar to the drug court group (group 4). 


   EVALUATION 3:  DADE COUNTY
   (GOLDKAMP AND WEILAND)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.1

Persons arrested for 2nd and 3rd degree drug-related felonies. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.2

Five key groups:\11

(1)Persons admitted to drug court program (n=326). 

(2)Sample of felony drug defendants in same period not eligible
because of more serious drug-related offenses (n=199). 

(3)Sample of nondrug felony defendants in same period (n=185). 

(4)Sample of felony drug defendants in period several years earlier
(n=302). 

(5)Sample of felony nondrug defendants in period several years
earlier (n=536). 

In addition, the evaluation compared persons completing the drug
court program with those failing to complete. 


--------------------
\11 An additional sample of offenders could not reliably be used as a
control group because they were exposed to the drug court program. 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.3

Participants in groups 1-3 had charges filed in August 1990 and
September 1990.  Charges for groups 4-5 were filed in the summer of
1987.  Data report results after 18 month follow-up. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.4

(1)Rearrest rates:  Drug court defendants were rearrested at a
statistically significant lower rate (33 percent, vs.  40 percent to
53 percent for other groups). 

(2)Time before rearrest:  Drug court defendants had statistically
significant longer time before rearrest (median of 235 days, vs.  52
to 115 days for other groups). 

(3)Rearrests and treatment completion:  Rearrest rates were
associated with failure to complete the treatment program. 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.5

The results suggested an effect of the program.  However, the study
design was unable to make the comparison with offenders in the same
situation with similarly serious drug offenses; therefore, the
results must be interpreted cautiously.  In particular, the drug
court sample had fewer prior arrests than had the other comparison
groups, and the key group of felony drug defendants used for
comparative purposes were not eligible for the drug court program
because of the seriousness of their charges or prior records. 

The comparisons between those completing and failing to complete the
program must also be viewed with caution, due to possible
motivational and other differences between the groups. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ officials noted that
this study had a strong design with carefully drawn comparison
groups.  We agree that the study's design was generally strong. 
However, as we state in this report, there were some potentially
important differences in prior arrest rates between the groups, and
the study was not able to compare similarly situated drug defendants
in a roughly similar time period.  Therefore, as we noted, the
study's results should be interpreted cautiously. 


   EVALUATION 4:  DADE COUNTY
   (SMITH, DAVIS AND GORETSKY)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.1

Defendants with no prior convictions charged with a drug possession
offense, admitting to a drug problem for which they wanted treatment. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.2

Comparison of 318 defendants assigned to the drug court with a sample
of 99 narcotics cases in early 1988.  In addition, a group of drug
court defendants who were accepted into the drug court program were
compared on rearrest rates. 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.3

Participants were assigned to the drug court in January 1990 through
March 1990.  The comparison group was charged between January 1988
and March 1988. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.4

(1)Rearrest rates:  There was no statistically significant difference
in the rate of felony rearrests after 1 year between those assigned
to drug court (32 percent) and the comparison group of defendants
charged 2 years earlier (33 percent).  Those defendants accepted by
the drug court did have lower rates of rearrest (15 percent), but the
authors noted that these individuals constituted "a highly select
group .  .  .  least disposed to commit new crimes." The rearrest
results in this evaluation differed from those in the other
evaluation of Dade County (evaluation 3). 

(2)Sentencing dispositions:  There were statistically significant
differences in dispositions between those assigned to drug court and
the comparison group of earlier defendants.  Those assigned to drug
court were more likely not to face further prosecution and less
likely to serve probation or short jail terms. 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.5

There were concerns about the comparability of the participants in
the various groups.  In particular, the finding of lower rearrest
rates for program participants should be viewed cautiously in light
of the selectivity of admission to the program.  As a result, there
were strong reservations about the results reported. 

DOJ officials, in commenting on a draft of this report, indicated
that this study had several flaws.  They pointed out that the study
was done when this drug court was less than 10 months old.  They
further noted that information on successful drug court participants
was not available for evaluation because the participants' records
were sealed.  We concur with these comments. 


   EVALUATION 5:  BROWARD COUNTY
   (TERRY)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.1

First-time offenders arrested for possession or purchase of cocaine. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.2

Comparison of 392 defendants completing or remaining in the drug
court program with 241 defendants not completing the drug court
program. 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.3

Participants entered the program from July 1991 through June 1992. 
Study results were reported for October 1993. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.4

Rearrests:  Persons remaining in the program committed felonies at a
slightly lower rate than did those leaving the program (7.7 percent
vs.  12.0 percent).  (Cases dismissed were not included in these
comparisons.) No differences occurred in comparing the proportions
having committed misdemeanors (4.1 percent for persons remaining in
the program vs.  5.0 percent for those leaving the program). 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.5

There was no adequate comparison group in this study from which to
draw any conclusions about the effect of the program. 


   EVALUATION 6:  MULTNOMAH COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6


         TREATMENT GROUP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.1

Defendants arrested for possession of any illegal substance for
personal use. 


         STUDY DESIGN
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.2

Comparison of 105 defendants graduating from the drug court program
with 78 defendants who terminated unsuccessfully. 


         TIME OF STUDY
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.3

Participants entered the program on or before August 1, 1992, and
graduated or terminated unsuccessfully on or before April 1, 1994. 


         KEY MEASURES
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.4

Graduates had lower rates of bench warrants for failure to appear,
went slightly longer before the first bench warrant was issued, and
had a lower percentage of positive urine tests than those who
terminated unsuccessfully.  However, the report did not indicate
whether these figures referred to prior histories or follow-up
information after program completion. 


         ASSESSMENT
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.5

There was no adequate comparison group in this study from which to
draw any conclusions about the effect of the program. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
BRIEFING REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice
 Issues
Samuel A.  Caldrone, Senior Evaluator
Deborah A.  Knorr, Senior Evaluator
Patricia J.  Scanlon, Staff Evaluator
Barry J.  Seltser, Assistant Director, Design, Methodology and
 Technical Assistance Group
Douglas M.  Sloane, Assistant Director
David P.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Arthur J.  Kendall, Senior Mathematical Statistician
Katherine M.  Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst

BOSTON/NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE

Brenda R.  James Towe, Evaluator-in-Charge
Rudolf F.  Plessing, Core Group Manager
Michael Savino, Senior Evaluator

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney
