    Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results (Chapter
    Report, 07/31/97, GAO/GGD-97-106).

    Pursuant to a legislative mandate, GAO reviewed the effectiveness and
    impact of federal grants for drug court programs that include
    court-supervised drug treatment, focusing on: (1) the universe of and
    funding for drug courts; (2) the approaches, characteristics, and
    completion and retention rates of existing programs; (3) the extent to
    which program and participant data are maintained and used to manage and
    evaluate drug court programs; and (4) the results of GAO's review and
    synthesis of existing published and unpublished evaluations or
    assessments of drug court programs regarding the impact of such
    programs.

    GAO noted that: (1) there has been a substantial increase in the number
    of drug court programs started in the United States and the availability
    of federal funding to support such programs; (2) between 1989 and 1994,
    42 drug court programs were started; (3) since 1994, the total number of
    operating drug court programs had grown to 161 as of March 31,1997; (4)
    the number of drug court programs in various developmental stages as of
    the same date indicates that the number of operating programs will
    likely continue to grow; (5) over $125 million has been made available
    for the planning, implementation, enhancement, or evaluation studies of
    drug court programs from a variety of funding sources since 1989; (6)
    federal funding, which has increased substantially since 1993, has
    provided over $80 million of the total; (7) over 95 percent of the
    federal funding has been provided through federal grants administered by
    the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS); (8) state and local governments, private donations, and
    fees collected from program participants have provided about $45
    million; (9) some programs reported that they deferred prosecuting
    offenders who entered the program, some allowed offenders to enter the
    program after their case had been adjudicated, and others allowed
    offenders to enter their program on a trial basis after entering a plea;
    (10) with the exception of follow-up data on program participants after
    leaving the program, most drug court programs surveyed by GAO reported
    that they maintained various types of data on program participants as
    suggested by DOJ in its guidance to jurisdictions applying for federal
    grants under: (a) Title V of the Violent Crime Act; (b) the HHS Center
    For Substance Abuse and Treatment in its drug court treatment
    guidelines; and (c) the National Association of Drug Court Professionals
    Standards Committee, which develops standards and provides guidance to
    drug court programs, in its drug court program guide; (11) GAO, for
    several reasons, could not draw any firm conclusions on the overall
    impact of drug court programs or on certain specific issues raised by
    Congress about the programs or their participants; and (12) DOJ, in
    conjunction with various stakeholders in the drug court community, has
    initiated an impact evaluation, to be completed in 1999, of four of the
    oldest drug court programs; (12) this evaluation is designed to address
    some of the factors associated with existing studies that prevented GAO
    from reaching firm conclusions.

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

     REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-106
         TITLE:  Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and
                 Results
          DATE:  07/31/97
       SUBJECT:  Recidivism
                 Drug treatment
                 Drug abuse
                 Courts (law)
                 Crimes or offenses
                 Federal grants
                 Program evaluation
                 Defendants
                 Data collection
                 Offender rehabilitation
    IDENTIFIER:  Correctional Options Grant
                 Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
                 Assistance Program
                 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
                 Comprehensive Communities 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.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

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

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

    July 1997

    DRUG COURTS - OVERVIEW OF GROWTH,
    CHARACTERISTICS, AND RESULTS

    GAO/GGD-97-106

    Overview of Drug Courts

    (188626)

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

      AA - Alcoholics Anonymous
      BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
      CSAT - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
      DOJ - Department of Justice
      DCPO - Drug Courts Program Office
      HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
      HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
      JMI - Justice Management Institute
      LLEBG - Local Law Enforcement Block Grants
      NA - Narcotics Anonymous
      NADCP - National Association of Drug Court Professionals
      NCJRS - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
      NIJ - National Institute of Justice
      ONDCP - Office of National Drug Control Policy
      OJP - Office of Justice Programs
      SJI - State Justice Institute

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

    B-275268

    July 31, 1997

    The Honorable Orrin G.  Hatch
    Chairman
    The Honorable Patrick J.  Leahy
    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

    Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
    which authorizes the award of federal grants for drug court programs,
    requires that we assess the effectiveness and impact of these grants
    and report to Congress.  To assist Congress in its deliberations on
    whether to fund drug court programs, we provided a preliminary report
    in May 1995.\1 In response to the legislative mandate and discussions
    with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, this report discusses
    (1) the universe of and funding for drug courts; (2) their
    approaches, characteristics, and completion and retention rates; (3)
    the extent to which program and participant data are maintained and
    used to manage and evaluate drug courts; and (4) the results of our
    review and synthesis of existing published and unpublished
    evaluations or assessments of drug court programs regarding the
    impact of such programs.  This report contains recommendations to the
    Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the
    Executive Director of the State Justice Institute to help ensure
    that, to the extent feasible, follow-up data on program participants
    are collected by drug court programs and considered in future impact
    evaluations.

    We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
    Minority Members of other appropriate congressional committees, the
    Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
    Executive Director of the State Justice Institute, the Director of
    the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties.
    Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

    The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix X.  If
    you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
    call me on (202) 512-8777.

    Norman J.  Rabkin
    Director, Administration of
     Justice Issues

    --------------------
    \1 Drug Courts:  Information on a New Approach to Address
    Drug-Related Crime (GAO/GGD-95-159BR, May 22, 1995).

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    ============================================================ Chapter 0

       PURPOSE
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

    Since the 1980s, the drug epidemic in the United States and the
    adoption of tougher drug policies by lawmakers and officials have
    contributed to an overload of drug cases on judicial dockets.  In
    response to the deluge of drug cases and the cycle of criminal
    recidivism\1 common among drug offenders, some state and local
    jurisdictions began in the late 1980s creating drug courts.  These
    are special judicial proceedings generally used for nonviolent drug
    offenders that feature supervised treatment and periodic drug
    testing.

    Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
    (P.L.  103-322) (hereafter referred to as the Violent Crime Act)
    specifically authorizes the award of federal grants for drug court
    programs that include court-supervised drug treatment.\2

    The act requires that GAO assess the effectiveness and impact of
    these grants and report to Congress.  In response to this requirement
    and on the basis of discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary
    Committees, GAO focused its work on determining (1) the universe of
    and funding for drug court programs; (2) the approaches,
    characteristics, and completion and retention rates of existing
    programs; and (3) the extent to which program and participant data
    are maintained and used to manage and evaluate drug court programs.

    GAO also focused on determining what conclusions can be drawn from
    existing published and available unpublished evaluations or
    assessments of drug court programs on the impact of such programs,
    particularly as they relate to the following specific issues raised
    in Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act and in GAO's discussions
    with Senate and House Judiciary Committees:  (1) criminal profile of
    program participants compared to similar offenders processed through
    the traditional adjudication system, (2) completion rates of
    participants, (3) differences in characteristics between program
    graduates and dropouts, (4) sanctions imposed on persons who failed
    to complete drug court programs or comply with program requirements,
    (5) drug use and criminal recidivism rates of program and nonprogram
    participants, and (6) costs and benefits of drug court programs to
    the criminal justice system.

    In 1995, GAO issued an initial report\3 on drug court programs, which
    provided preliminary information on programs operating at that time.

    --------------------
    \1 GAO uses the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of
    committing new criminal offenses after having been arrested and/or
    convicted of a crime.

    \2 Under this act, the Attorney General in administering the federal
    drug court grant program is required to consult with the Secretary of
    Health and Human Services, who is responsible for providing grants to
    public and private entities that provide substance abuse treatment
    for individuals under criminal justice supervision.

    \3 Drug Courts:  Information on a New Approach to Address
    Drug-Related Crime, GAO/GGD-95-159BR, May 22, 1995.

       BACKGROUND
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

    The main purpose of drug court programs is to use the authority of
    the court to reduce crime by changing defendants' drug-using
    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 of the
    judicial process depending on the circumstances.  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, the programs vary in terms of
    approaches used, participant eligibility and program requirements,
    type of treatment provided, sanctions and rewards, and other
    practices.

    With the assistance of the Drug Court Clearinghouse,\4 GAO identified
    existing drug court programs.  GAO, among other things, then surveyed
    and obtained responses from 134 of the 140 drug court programs that
    were identified as operating as of December 31, 1996.  GAO also did
    an evaluation synthesis of 20 studies\5 that included some relevant
    information on the impact of specific drug court programs and
    identified a variety of other documents that described program
    objectives and operations; provided judicial commentary on these
    programs; and, in some cases, provided a summary description of a
    number of programs.

    --------------------
    \4 The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at
    the American University, which is funded by the Department of
    Justice's Drug Court Program Office, among other things, compiles,
    publishes, and disseminates information and materials on drug courts
    and provides technical assistance to jurisdictions involved with
    planning and implementing drug court programs.

    \5 GAO's literary search and data collection efforts identified over
    80 documents available as of March 31, 1997, that were either
    published or unpublished evaluation studies; described program
    objectives and operations; provided judicial commentary; and, in some
    cases, provided a summary description of a number of programs.  Only
    20 of these documents met the criteria for inclusion in GAO's
    evaluation synthesis, including providing some information on the
    impact and/or effectiveness of drug court programs.

       RESULTS IN BRIEF
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

    There has been a substantial increase in the number of drug court
    programs started in the United States and the availability of federal
    funding to support such programs.  Between 1989 and 1994, 42 drug
    court programs were started.\6 Since 1994, the total number of
    operating drug court programs had grown to 161 as of March 31, 1997.
    The number of drug court programs in various developmental stages as
    of the same date indicates that the number of operating programs will
    likely continue to grow.

    Over $125 million has been made available for the planning,
    implementation, enhancement, and/or evaluation studies of drug court
    programs from a variety of funding sources since 1989.  Federal
    funding, which has increased substantially since 1993, has provided
    over $80 million of the total.  Over 95 percent of the federal
    funding has been provided through federal grants administered by the
    Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human
    Services.  State and local governments, private donations, and fees
    collected from program participants have provided about $45 million.

    The drug court programs GAO surveyed were very diverse in approach,
    characteristics, and completion and retention rates.\7

    Some programs reported that they deferred prosecuting offenders who
    entered the program, some allowed offenders to enter the program
    after their case had been adjudicated, and others allowed offenders
    to enter their program on a trial basis after entering a plea.
    Although all of the programs GAO surveyed reported having a treatment
    component as a part of their overall program, results from a Drug
    Court Clearinghouse survey indicated that the type and extent of
    treatment provided to program participants varied among the programs.
    Populations targeted by these programs also varied among the drug
    court programs and included adults and juveniles, nonviolent and some
    violent offenders,\8

    offenders with and without a substance addiction\9 , and first-time
    and repeat offenders.  However, drug court programs most frequently
    reported that participants were typically adult, nonviolent offenders
    with a substance addiction.  The drug court programs GAO surveyed
    reported that, since 1989, they had admitted over 65,000 offenders.
    The completion and retention rates for participants in these programs
    were reported to range, respectively, from about 8 to 95 percent and
    31 to 100 percent.

    With the exception of follow-up data on program participants after
    leaving the program, most drug court programs surveyed by GAO
    reported that they maintained various types of data on program
    participants as suggested by the Department of Justice in its
    guidance to jurisdictions applying for federal grants under (1) Title
    V of the Violent Crime Act; (2) the Health and Human Services' Center
    for Substance Abuse and Treatment in its drug court treatment
    guidelines; and (3) the National Association of Drug Court
    Professionals' Standards Committee, which develops standards and
    provides guidance to drug court programs, in its recently issued drug
    court program "Key Components" guide.  In addition, collaborative
    efforts among drug court program stakeholders have been undertaken to
    study the feasibility of and suggest ways to overcome obstacles,
    including cost and legal issues, associated with a recognized need in
    the drug court community to collect and maintain follow-up and other
    data on drug court program participants, which some drug court
    programs and stakeholders have demonstrated to be feasible to
    collect.

    GAO, for several reasons, could not draw any firm conclusions on the
    overall impact of drug court programs or on certain specific issues
    raised by Congress about the programs or their participants.  For
    example, many of the evaluations available at the time of GAO's
    review (1) involved programs that were relatively new at the time of
    the evaluations and were diverse in nature; (2) had differences and
    limitations in their objectives, scopes, and methodologies, including
    (in 11 of the 20 studies) no assessment of program participants after
    they left the programs, and (in 14 of the 20 studies) no comparison
    of how participants and nonparticipant arrest rates compared after
    program completion; and (3) showed varied results regarding program
    impact and the specific issues raised about drug court programs and
    their participants.

    Justice, in conjunction with various stakeholders in the drug court
    community, has initiated an impact evaluation, to be completed in
    1999, of four of the oldest drug court programs.  This evaluation is
    designed to address some of the factors associated with existing
    studies that prevented GAO from reaching firm conclusions.  However,
    GAO notes that the outcomes of any future evaluations of drug court
    programs may be hindered by the lack of available follow-up data,
    which drug court programs are not currently required to collect.  If
    issues raised by Congress and others about the efficacy of drug court
    programs are to be addressed, following up on participants and
    nonparticipants (i.e., eligible offenders who chose not to
    participate) for some period after they leave the program to find out
    whether they committed new crimes or relapsed into drug use would be
    important.

    --------------------
    \6 This number, which is based on GAO's independent survey and other
    sources, differs from the 36 drug court programs cited in GAO's prior
    report (GGD-95-159BR) as started between 1989 and 1994, which was
    based on information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse at
    the time.

    \7 "Completion rates" and "retention rates" are indicators commonly
    used in the drug court community to measure the impact of drug court
    programs.  Completion rates refer to individuals who completed or
    were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a percentage
    of the total number admitted and not still enrolled.  This measure is
    an indicator of the extent to which offenders successfully complete
    their drug court program requirements.  Retention rates refer to
    individuals who are currently active participants in or have
    completed or were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a
    percentage of the total number admitted.  This measure is an
    indicator of the extent to which a program has been successful at
    retaining program participants in the program at the time of GAO's
    survey.  Although interrelated, both measures are helpful in
    assessing program performance.  A program that had been operating
    consistently over a longer period would be expected to have similar
    completion and retention rates.

    \8 Survey responses were based on individual jurisdictions'
    definitions of a "violent offender," which may or may not differ from
    the federal definition as defined under the Violent Crime Act to mean
    a person who (1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, during
    the course of which offense or conduct (a) the person carried,
    possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous weapon; (b) there occurred
    the death of or serious bodily injury to any person; or (c) there
    occurred the use of force against the person of another, without
    regard to whether any of the circumstances described in the
    aforementioned subparagraphs is an element of the offense or conduct
    of which or for which the person is charged or convicted; or (2) has
    one or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence
    involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the
    intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.

    \9 According to the Department of Health and Human Services officials
    and other drug court program stakeholders, persons admitted without
    substance addictions are likely to include persons with substance
    abuse problems who were not identified as being addicted during their
    initial screening.  In addition, some drug court programs target
    special populations.  For example, the Jackson County, Missouri, drug
    court program, in addition to targeting others, targets prostitutes
    because of the likelihood that their drug abuse is the reason for
    their criminal behavior.  Another program in Las Vegas, Nevada,
    targets parents or guardians of juveniles who have been identified as
    having a substance addiction.

       PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

          THE NUMBER OF DRUG COURT
          PROGRAMS AND THE
          AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING HAVE
          INCREASED
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

    Based on GAO's survey, 42 drug court programs were started between
    1989 and 1994.  Since then, 4 have closed and 123 more have started,
    bringing the total number of drug court programs operating to 161 as
    of March 31, 1997.  Moreover, an additional 154 drug court programs
    were in various developmental stages as of the same date, indicating
    potential future growth in the number of operating courts.  Drug
    court programs were operating in 38 states, the District of Columbia,
    and Puerto Rico and were being planned or studied in 8 of the
    remaining 12 states and Guam.  About 40 percent of the drug court
    programs operating were in California and Florida.

    Overall, information obtained directly from federal funding sources
    and 134 of the 140 drug court programs identified as operating as of
    December 31, 1996, showed that over $125 million in resources was
    obtained from federal, state, and local governments; private sources;
    and participant fees for planning, implementing, enhancing, and/or
    evaluating drug court programs.\10

    Federal funding, which has increased substantially since 1993,\11

    has provided over $80 million of the funding.  From fiscal years 1990
    through 1993, federal multipurpose funding sources provided about $6
    million in federal grants to support drug court programs.  Since
    then, about $75 million in additional federal funds have been awarded
    through March 31, 1997.  These funds were obtained from existing
    multipurpose grants and three additional federal funding sources that
    made funds specifically available for planning, implementing,
    enhancing, and/or evaluating drug court programs.

    Over 95 percent of the federal funding has been provided through
    federal grants administered by the Departments of Justice and Health
    and Human Services.  Drug court programs reported that about $45
    million was provided by state and local governments, private sources,
    and/or fees collected from program participants since 1989.  However,
    in commenting on a draft of this report, some drug court program
    stakeholders expressed the opinion that this amount may understate
    the actual amount of funding provided by state and local governments
    and other sources because some of the respondents to GAO's survey may
    have failed to include the state/local jurisdictions' contributions
    towards the administrative cost of the program staff (judges,
    prosecutors, pretrial service staff, court clerks, program
    coordinators, etc.) and/or cost of program facilities (courthouse and
    other administrative facilities) that are often contributed by the
    local jurisdiction.

    --------------------
    \10 The total amount of funding supporting drug court programs is
    likely understated because (1) some drug court programs were not able
    to determine the precise amount of funding they received from
    federal, state, and local governments; private funding sources;
    and/or participant fees and (2) certain multipurpose federal funding
    sources, which did not specifically target drug court programs, had
    not been tracking the funding of drug court programs.  In addition,
    information on the total amount of various federal block grant
    funding awarded to jurisdictions and used to support drug court
    programs, as well as Medicaid funding that may have been used by drug
    court participants to pay for the cost of treatment, was not
    available from either the funding sources or recipients.

    \11 Although GAO did not analyze the extent of increases in state and
    local funding, it has likely increased during this same time period
    due to the requirements for matching funds associated with most
    federal grants.

          APPROACHES, CHARACTERISTICS,
          AND COMPLETION AND RETENTION
          RATES OF EXISTING DRUG COURT
          PROGRAMS ARE DIVERSE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

    In response to GAO's survey, about 44 percent of the drug court
    programs operating as of December 31, 1996, reported deferring
    prosecution of drug offenders who agreed to enter a drug treatment
    program, and about 38 percent said that they allowed offenders to
    enter the program after being adjudicated.  About 10 percent reported
    that they used both approaches, and the remaining 8 percent said they
    used some other approach.

    All of the drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996,
    that were surveyed by GAO reported having a treatment component, and
    82 percent reported that participants generally started treatment
    within a week of entering the program.  However, the type and extent
    of treatment provided to program participants varied among the drug
    court programs.  For example, drug court programs responding to a
    Drug Court Clearinghouse survey reported using an array of treatment
    services, with the use of these services varying among programs.  In
    addition, some programs reported that a weekly visit to the treatment
    provider was required; others a minimum of three visits; and in some
    more extensive programs, four to five visits per week were required.

    The drug court programs responding to GAO's survey reported targeting
    various populations, including adults, women, juveniles, nonviolent
    and violent offenders, offenders with and without a substance
    addiction, first-time and repeat offenders, and probation violators.
    For example

      -- About 16 percent reported that juveniles were eligible to
         participate in their drug court program.

      -- About 6 percent accepted offenders with a current conviction for
         a violent offense.

      -- About 16 percent accepted offenders with a prior conviction for
         a violent offense.

      -- About 17 percent accepted offenders without a substance
         addiction.

      -- About 78 percent accepted repeat offenders.

      -- About 63 percent accepted probation violators.

    Drug court programs most frequently reported that program
    participants were adult, nonviolent offenders with a substance
    addiction.

    GAO's analysis of responses to its survey further showed that as of
    December 31, 1996, 65,921 people had been admitted to drug court
    programs in the United States since 1989.  About 31 percent (20,594)
    had completed programs, and about 24 percent (16,051) had failed to
    complete programs because they were terminated or they voluntarily
    withdrew or died while in the program.  About 40 percent, or 26,465
    offenders, were reported to be enrolled in drug court programs as of
    December 31, 1996.\12 The status of the remaining 4 percent, or about
    2,800 people, was unknown.\13

    The completion rate for participants in 56 of the 62 drug court
    programs surveyed that were identified as operating as of December
    31, 1996, for more than 18 months ranged from about 8 to 95 percent
    and averaged about 48 percent.\14 The retention rate for 131 of the
    134 programs GAO surveyed ranged from about 31 to 100 percent and
    averaged about 71 percent.\15

    --------------------
    \12 Of the 26,465 enrollees, about 25 percent, or 6,564, did not
    regularly attend programs or were wanted on bench warrants for
    failure to appear as of December 31, 1996.  However, the median for
    the 128 drug court programs that were able to account for the status
    of enrolled program participants was 5 inactive participants, and 1
    drug court program accounted for about 1,200 of the 6,564 inactive
    enrollees.

    \13 Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

    \14 Completion rates were not applicable for three of the programs
    because they had retained 100 percent of the program participants
    admitted at the time of GAO's survey.  For the remaining three
    programs, GAO was unable to calculate a completion rate because
    complete information on the status of certain program participants
    could not be provided by the drug court programs surveyed.

    \15 GAO was unable to calculate retention rates for three programs,
    because complete information on the status of certain program
    participants could not be provided by the drug court programs
    surveyed.

          EXCEPT FOR FOLLOW-UP DATA,
          MOST DRUG COURT PROGRAMS
          REPORTED COLLECTING AND
          USING SUGGESTED MANAGEMENT
          AND EVALUATION DATA
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

    Guidelines issued by Justice in 1996 require recipients of federal
    funds from the Violent Crime Act to demonstrate the capability to
    ensure adequate program management through ongoing monitoring,
    tracking, and program evaluation.  In this regard, the guidelines
    suggest that, among other things, the following information be
    collected for drug court participants and, to the extent possible,
    similarly situated nonparticipants:

      -- criminal justice history,

      -- history of substance abuse,

      -- level of use of controlled or addictive substances at the point
         of entry into the program,

      -- data on substance abuse relapse while in the program,

      -- data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime while in the
         program,

      -- completion/noncompletion of drug court program,

      -- follow-up data on substance abuse relapse after completing the
         program, and

      -- follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime after
         completing the program.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, Justice pointed out that it
    does not have the statutory authority to mandate that states or local
    jurisdictions collect specific program data for drug court programs
    funded by its block grants.

    In its 1996 and 1997 guidance, the Department of Health and Human
    Service's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment adopted similar
    suggestions for collecting and maintaining data on program
    participants.  In its recently issued drug court program guide, the
    National Association of Drug Court Professionals' Drug Court
    Standards Committee also adopted similar suggestions, including
    suggesting that data be collected and maintained on relapse and
    criminal recidivism of program participants after they leave the
    program and comparative data on similarly situated nonparticipants.
    However, recipients of other federal funds administered by the
    Department of Justice, as well as those receiving funds administered
    by the State Justice Institute\16 are not subject to similar
    guidance.

    Over 90 percent of the drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996, reported maintaining most of the suggested data to enable
    them to manage and evaluate their programs.  However, about 67
    percent of the drug court programs reported not maintaining follow-up
    drug relapse data, and about 47 percent reported not maintaining
    suggested follow-up data on rearrest or conviction for a crime once
    participants leave the programs.  GAO's survey results showed that no
    significant difference was associated with the source of funding
    (federal, state/local, private, etc.) received and the extent to
    which drug court programs collected and maintained suggested
    follow-up data.  GAO notes that since its survey was conducted,
    additional evidence has become available to indicate that
    collaborative efforts among stakeholders in the drug court community
    have been undertaken to study the feasibility of and address
    obstacles, including cost and legal issues, associated with a
    recognized need in the drug court community to collect and maintain
    follow-up and other data on drug court program participants.

    A significant number of drug court programs and some drug court
    community stakeholders have demonstrated that it would be feasible to
    collect and maintain follow-up data on criminal recidivism of program
    participants, and others have demonstrated that it would be somewhat
    feasible to collect and maintain follow-up data on drug use relapse.
    For example, in March 1997, the Department of Justice through a
    cooperative agreement with the Justice Management Institute sponsored
    a meeting involving various drug court stakeholders that focused on,
    among other things, the need for and ways to overcome obstacles
    associated with obtaining follow-up data on program participants to
    adequately monitor and evaluate the impact of drug court programs.

    --------------------
    \16 The State Justice Institute is a nonprofit organization created
    by federal law and funded through congressional appropriations.
    Among other things, the State Justice Institute has provided grants
    for evaluation studies of drug court programs.

          EXISTING EVALUATIONS PROVIDE
          SOME LIMITED INFORMATION BUT
          DO NOT PERMIT FIRM
          CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DRUG
          COURT IMPACT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

    The 20 evaluation studies that GAO reviewed and synthesized did not
    permit GAO to reach definitive conclusions concerning the overall
    impact of drug courts or the other specific issues mentioned earlier
    that have been raised by Congress and in GAO's discussions with the
    Senate and House Judiciary Committees about drug court programs and
    the offenders who participate in them.  For example, many of the
    available studies involved program approaches and characteristics
    that were diverse in nature, including, among other things,
    differences in eligible participants, differences in completion
    requirements, and differences in the type and extent of treatment
    provided.  Also, various differences and limitations were associated
    with the objectives, scopes, and methodologies of these studies.
    Among other things, most of the studies evaluated drug court programs
    that were still in their first or second year of operation, with many
    of the program participants being evaluated still active in the
    programs.  Most of the available studies involved very short
    follow-up periods.  Eleven of the 20 studies did not include an
    assessment of postprogram criminal recidivism among program
    participants, and none of the studies included an assessment of
    postprogram drug use relapse.  Also, most of the available studies
    (in 14 of the 20 studies) involved no comparison between participants
    and nonparticipant arrest rates after program completion.

    Although GAO cannot draw any firm conclusions on the overall impact
    of drug court programs or on specific issues that have been raised,
    GAO does provide some limited information in chapter 5 on these
    issues to the extent they are addressed in the 20 available studies
    it reviewed and synthesized.

    In April 1997, Justice issued a solicitation for an impact evaluation
    of four of the oldest drug court programs, which included an
    assessment of program participants after they leave the program.
    Also, during a March 1997 meeting involving Justice and various drug
    court program stakeholders, attention was given to the need for
    maintaining follow-up information on program participants and using
    it in any future impact evaluations.  Justice expects these efforts
    to address some of the factors associated with existing studies that
    prevented GAO from drawing firm conclusions.

       RECOMMENDATIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

    Congress and others have raised reasonable questions about whether
    drug court programs are effective.  However, these questions have not
    been answered definitively by the programs themselves or studies done
    to date, in large part because critical data about program
    participants after they leave the program or similarly situated
    non-participants have not been available.  Accordingly, to help
    ensure more effective management and evaluation of drug court
    programs, GAO recommends that the Attorney General and the Secretary
    of Health and Human Services

      -- require drug court programs funded by discretionary grants
         administered by Justice and Health and Human Services to collect
         and maintain follow-up data on program participants' criminal
         recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data on drug
         use relapse.

      -- require drug court programs funded by formula or block grants
         administered by Justice and Health and Human Services, to the
         extent permitted by law, to collect and maintain follow-up data
         on program participants' criminal recidivism and, to the extent
         feasible, follow-up data on drug use relapse.  Where no
         statutory authority exists to impose such requirements, GAO
         recommends that Justice and Health and Human Services include in
         their respective grant guidelines language to suggest that drug
         court programs funded by these sources similarly collect and
         maintain such data.

    To better ensure that conclusions about the impact of drug court
    programs on participants' criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse
    can be drawn, GAO recommends that the Attorney General, the Secretary
    of Health and Human Services, and the Executive Director of the State
    Justice Institute require that the scope of future impact evaluations
    of drug court programs funded by their respective agencies include an
    assessment of program participants' postprogram criminal recidivism
    and drug use relapse and, whenever feasible, compare drug court
    participants with similar nonparticipants.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

    The Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, the State
    Justice Institute, the National Association of Drug Court
    Professionals, and the Drug Court Clearinghouse provided written
    comments on a draft of this report.  These comments are discussed at
    the end of chapters 1, 2, and 5.  These organizations generally
    agreed with GAO's findings relating to the growth, characteristics,
    and results of drug court programs and the conclusions and
    recommendations relating to the collection and maintenance of
    follow-up data on program participants and impact evaluations of
    these programs.  However, Justice raised a legal concern about its
    ability to impose mandatory requirements on congressionally
    authorized entitlement grants--formula or block grant programs.  The
    State Justice Institute raised concern about its ability to impose
    data collection requirements on programs for which it only provides
    short-term funding.  Also, Justice and the National Association of
    Drug Court Professionals indicated that one of the difficulties
    associated with GAO's recommendation that evaluations of drug court
    programs include follow-up data and comparison groups is the lack of
    ongoing technical assistance and sufficient resources available to
    drug court programs to enable them to develop the capacity for data
    collection and program evaluation.  While Justice reiterated that it
    has taken a number of steps to develop the capacity for data
    collection and evaluation among its drug court grantees, Justice
    notes that it will work with Congress to increase its funding for
    technical assistance.

    GAO revised its recommendations to recognize statutory limitations
    that may be associated with formula and block grant programs
    administered by Justice and the Department of Health and Human
    Services.  GAO did not, however, systematically review and therefore
    cannot comment on the sufficiency and adequacy of technical
    assistance and related resources that are currently being provided to
    drug court programs.

    The National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the Drug
    Court Clearinghouse commented that while it may be too early to reach
    firm conclusions on the impact of drug court programs, the retention
    and completion rates from GAO's survey results and the differences in
    recidivism rates revealed in the evaluation studies reviewed by GAO
    permit a more positive conclusion about drug court programs than GAO
    arrives at in its report.  GAO continues to believe it is essential
    to emphasize that there are shortcomings associated with many of the
    evaluations of drug court programs that have been done, and thus
    there are good reasons for withholding final judgment until more and
    better data are collected and additional studies are completed.

    The Department of Health and Human Services expressed concerns with
    the lack of a thorough assessment of the adequacy of treatment being
    provided to drug court program participants in the scope of GAO's
    study.  While GAO recognizes the Department's view that it would be
    helpful to have a detailed assessment of the quality and adequacy of
    the treatment component of the drug court program, such an effort
    would have gone well beyond the objectives and scope of this overview
    assessment of drug court programs.

    INTRODUCTION
    ============================================================ Chapter 1

    Since the 1980s, the drug epidemic in the United States has
    contributed to an overload of drug cases in many state and local
    criminal justice systems.  The Office of National Drug Control Policy
    (ONDCP) estimates that each year illegal drugs kill more than 16,000
    Americans and cost taxpayers nearly seventy billion dollars, and that
    more than half of all people brought into the nation's criminal
    justice system have substance abuse problems.  According to the
    Department of Justice (DOJ), these drug abusers were more likely than
    nonabusers to be rearrested.  In response to the deluge of drug cases
    in the late 1980s and the cycle of criminal recidivism common among
    drug offenders, some state and local jurisdictions began creating
    drug courts.\1 Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law
    Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.  103-322) (hereafter referred to as the
    Violent Crime Act) specifically authorizes DOJ to award federal
    grants for 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.  Under this
    act, the Attorney General, in administering the federal drug court
    grant program, is required to consult with the Secretary of Health
    and Human Services (HHS), who is responsible for, among other things,
    providing grants to public and nonprofit private entities that
    provide substance abuse treatment for individuals under criminal
    justice supervision.

    The main purpose of drug courts is to use the authority of the court
    to reduce crime by changing defendants' drug-using 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 of the judicial process depending
    on the circumstances.  Typically, 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, related
    criminal justice agencies, treatment providers, and other social
    service and community organizations.  The extent and nature of
    collaboration depends on local needs and the targeted population
    being served and, thus, may differ considerably among drug court
    programs.

    The approaches used by and basic elements common to drug court
    programs, including participant eligibility criteria, treatment
    requirements, completion requirements, and program sanctions are
    discussed next.

    --------------------
    \1 According to DOJ, two types of drug courts have evolved:  those
    that (1) expedite drug cases without court-supervised drug treatment
    and (2) use court-monitored drug treatment to attempt to achieve
    changes in defendants' drug-using behavior.  This report focuses on
    the latter, drug treatment courts.  Throughout this report, we use
    the term "drug court programs" to refer to these courts.  DOJ defines
    drug treatment courts as special court calendars or dockets designed
    to achieve a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse among
    nonviolent, substance abusing offenders by increasing their
    likelihood for successful rehabilitation through early, continuous,
    and intense judicially supervised treatment; mandatory periodic drug
    testing; and the use of appropriate sanctions and other
    rehabilitation services.

       DRUG COURT APPROACHES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

    According to a report provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse,\2

    drug courts have generally taken two approaches to processing cases:
    (1) deferred prosecution (diversion) 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 plead guilty or are
    tried and, if convicted, their sentences are deferred and/or
    incarceration is suspended pending successful completion of drug
    court program requirements.  This approach provides an incentive for
    the defendant to rehabilitate because progress toward rehabilitation
    is factored into the sentencing determination.  (See app.  I for a
    flowchart of these two drug court approaches.)

    According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals
    (NADCP),\3 another common approach, the hybrid plea approach,
    generally allows a defendant to enter a plea; waive rights to a jury
    trial; and/or admit to evidence entered and enter the drug court
    program on a voluntary basis for a limited trial period after which
    time the defendant has to decide whether to remain in the program or
    serve his or her sentence.

    --------------------
    \2 The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project,
    which is funded by the Department of Justice's Drug Courts Program
    Office, began operating October 1, 1995, under a cooperative
    agreement with the American University, in partnership with the
    National Consortium of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime
    Program.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse, among other things, compiles,
    publishes, and disseminates information and materials on drug courts
    and provides technical assistance to jurisdictions involved with
    planning and implementing drug court programs.

    \3 This is the principal organization of professionals involved in
    the development of treatment-oriented drug courts.  Organized in 1994
    by the 12 original drug court programs, its members include judges,
    prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment-service providers,
    educators, researchers, and community leaders.  NADCP acts primarily
    as an advocate for the development of effective drug court programs
    and works to provide guidance to the drug court community through its
    education and training programs.  NADCP has no statutory or
    regulatory authority over drug court program operations.

       PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY
       CRITERIA
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

    According to the Drug Court Clearinghouse, drug court programs
    generally accept defendants with substance abuse problems who were
    being charged with drug possession and/or other nonviolent offenses
    such as property crimes.  Some drug court programs allow defendants
    who have prior convictions, and others do not.  In addition, as
    discussed in chapter 3, our survey results show that some programs
    allow defendants without a substance addiction and defendants
    currently or previously charged with a violent offense.  Federal
    grants administered under the Violent Crime Act are not supposed to
    be awarded to any drug court program that allows either current or
    past violent offenders to participate in its program.\4

    --------------------
    \4 The 1994 Violent Crime Act defines "violent offender" to mean a
    person who "(1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, during
    the course of which offense or conduct (a) the person carried,
    possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous weapon; (b) there occurred
    the death of or serious bodily injury to any person; or (c) there
    occurred the use of force against the person of another, without
    regard to whether any of the circumstances described in the
    aforementioned subparagraphs is an element of the offense or conduct
    of which or for which the person is charged or convicted; or (2) has
    one or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence
    involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the
    intent to cause death or serious bodily harm."

       TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

    According to the Drug Court Clearinghouse, in most drug court
    programs, treatment is designed to usually last at least 1 year and
    is generally administered on an outpatient basis with limited
    inpatient treatment as needed to address special detoxification or
    relapse situations.\5 Many of the programs 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 such matters as drug testing and
    attendance at counseling sessions.  The judge is to reinforce
    progress and address noncompliance with program requirements.  The
    primary objectives of the status hearing are to keep the defendant in
    treatment and to provide continuing court supervision.

    Treatment services are generally divided into three phases and
    detoxification, stabilization, counseling, drug education, and
    therapy are commonly provided during phases I and II and, in some
    instances, throughout the program.  Other services relating to
    personal and educational development, job skills, and employment
    services are provided during phases II and III, after participants
    have responded to initial detoxification and stabilization.  Housing,
    family, and medical services are frequently available throughout the
    program.  In some instances, a fourth phase consisting primarily of
    aftercare-related services is provided.  The objectives of drug court
    program treatment are generally to (1) eliminate the program
    participants' physical dependence on drugs through detoxification;
    (2) treat the defendant's craving for drugs through stabilization,
    also referred to as the rehabilitation stage in which frequent group
    and/or individual counseling sessions are generally employed; and (3)
    focus on helping the defendant obtain education or job training, find
    a job, and remain drug free.

    HHS' Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), which has provided
    technical support, guidelines, and assistance to the drug court
    community, in its 1997 planning guide and checklist for
    treatment-based drug courts\6 identified the following as critical
    elements of comprehensive substance abuse treatment:

      -- Screening to determine the likelihood of substance abuse;

      -- Assessment to determine the individual's biopsychosocial needs,
         and to develop an individualized treatment plan;

      -- Comprehensive, client-oriented treatment to include a range of
         appropriate modalities, drug testing, cultural/gender specific
         needs, mental and primary health care, anger management, and
         other adjunct services (e.g., acupuncture, Alcoholics Anonymous
         (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), family assistance, housing, and
         employment);

      -- Therapeutic relapse prevention techniques to identify relapsing
         triggers, and develop alternative responses; and

      -- Case management of the client's performance, progress, rewards,
         and sanctions consistent with the individualized treatment plan.

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

    \6 Substance Abuse Treatment Planning Guide and Checklist for
    Treatment-Based Drug Courts, U.S.  Department of Health and Human
    Services, 1997.

       PROGRAM COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

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

    In many jurisdictions, completion of the drug court program leads to
    a dismissal of charges or termination of prosecution proceedings.  In
    other jurisdictions, 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 court case records, including arrests, are sealed when
    defendants complete the program.

       PROGRAM SANCTIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

    Sanctions for failing to abide by drug court program rules can
    include (1) verbal warning from the judge; (2) transfer to an earlier
    stage of the program; (3) incarceration for several days or weeks,
    generally increasing with the number and severity of the violations;
    and (4) more frequent status hearings, treatment sessions, or drug
    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 court programs use sanctions not
    to simply punish inappropriate behavior but to augment the treatment
    process.  For example, many drug court programs 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 court judges incarcerate defendants for the purpose of
    detoxification rather than for inappropriate behavior.  According to
    NADCP, most drug court programs require some initial period of
    incarceration.

       TERMINATION CRITERIA
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:6

    Drug court programs typically use various criteria for ending a
    defendant's participation in the program before completion.  These
    criteria 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 drug tests.
    According to DOJ, many drug court programs do not terminate
    defendants for a new drug possession offense.

    Before terminating a defendant for continuing to use drugs, drug
    court programs generally will use an array of treatment services and
    available sanctions.  There are no uniform standards among all
    programs on the number of failed drug tests and failures to attend
    treatment sessions that lead to a participant being terminated.  Drug
    court program judges generally make decisions to terminate a program
    participant on a case-by-case basis taking into account the
    recommendations of others, including the treatment provider,
    prosecutor, and/or defense counsel.  Relapses are expected, and the
    extent to which noncompliance results in terminations varies from
    program to program.  Once a defendant is terminated, he or she is
    usually referred for adjudication or sentencing.

       OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
       METHODOLOGY
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:7

    Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act requires us to assess the
    effectiveness and impact of federal grants awarded under Title V of
    the act for drug court programs.  In response to this requirement and
    based on discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees,
    our objectives for this review were to answer the following key
    questions:

    (1) What is the universe of and availability of funding for drug
    court programs?

    (2) What are the approaches used, characteristics of program
    participants, type and extent of treatment provided, and retention
    and completion rates of existing drug court programs?

    (3) To what extent are program and participant data maintained and
    used to manage and evaluate drug court programs?

    (4) What conclusions can be drawn from existing published and
    unpublished evaluations or assessments of drug court programs on the
    impact of such programs, particularly as it relates to the

      -- criminal profile of drug court participants compared to similar
         offenders processed through the traditional judiciary system,

      -- completion rates of participants,

      -- differences in characteristics between drug court program
         graduates and dropouts,

      -- sanctions imposed on persons who failed to complete drug court
         programs or comply with program requirements,

      -- drug use and criminal recidivism rates of program participants
         and nonparticipants, and

      -- costs and benefits of drug court programs to the criminal
         justice system?

    To determine the universe of drug court programs, we collected and
    reviewed information from various units within DOJ, including the
    Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), which is responsible for
    administering the federal drug court program under the Violent Crime
    Act; NADCP; and the Drug Court Clearinghouse, which provided us with
    general information that it had compiled on drug courts.  To obtain
    more current and specific information on the drug court universe, we
    (1) did computerized searches of several on-line databases, including
    the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS); (2) did
    key-word searches concerning drug court programs on the Internet; (3)
    sent a questionnaire to 134 of the 140 drug court programs identified
    as operating as of December 31, 1996;\7 and (4) held structured
    telephone interviews with state and drug court program officials
    throughout the United States to identify additional jurisdictions
    that, as of March 31, 1997, had an operating drug court program, were
    about to start a drug court program in 1997, were planning a program,
    or were doing a feasibility study of establishing a drug court
    program.

    We received responses from all 134 drug court programs we surveyed.
    However, with the exception of some limited verification of
    information provided on the number of program participants admitted,
    terminated, graduated, and currently enrolled, we did not verify the
    accuracy of the data provided to us by the Drug Court Clearinghouse
    or by drug court programs.  Appendix II contains a copy of our survey
    questionnaire, with summary responses to each question, as
    appropriate.  In addition, we visited two drug court programs in
    Baltimore and attended several focus group meetings and drug court
    program conferences in 1996 and 1997 that were sponsored by DOJ;
    NADCP; State Justice Institute (SJI), a nonprofit organization
    created by federal law and funded through congressional
    appropriations, which among other things, has provided grants for
    evaluation studies of drug court programs; and the Justice Management
    Institute (JMI), a nonprofit organization that provides training,
    technical assistance, and other support for justice system agencies
    and courts in the United States and abroad.

    To determine DOJ's responsibilities and plans for implementing the
    federal grant program and to obtain information on drug court program
    funding, we met with representatives of DOJ's Office of Justice
    Programs (OJP), including representatives from DCPO, who were
    responsible for administering grants under the Violent Crime Act and
    providing technical assistance and training to Violent Crime Act
    funded drug court programs; Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), who
    were responsible for administering other DOJ grants, including
    discretionary and formula block grants that have been used in support
    of drug court programs or evaluations; and National Institute of
    Justice (NIJ), who have been primarily responsible for DOJ's
    evaluation of drug court programs and who have also provided support
    for evaluation efforts in the drug court field.  We also reviewed
    documents regarding these organizations' responsibilities and plans
    for implementing and monitoring the federally supported drug court
    program.  We also sought and obtained funding information from HHS'
    CSAT, Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development and
    Block Grant Program, and SJI.  In addition, we included a question on
    the survey sent to 134 of the 140 drug court programs identified as
    operating as of December 31, 1996, on the amount of funding received
    from federal, state/local, and private funding sources and fees
    collected from program participants.  With the exception of some
    limited clarification of the reported sources and amounts of funding
    received by drug court programs, we did not verify the accuracy of
    the amount of funding from the various sources identified by the drug
    court programs.

    To determine the approaches used, key characteristics, and completion
    and retention rates of existing drug court programs, we included in
    our survey questions on program approaches and characteristics such
    as when the program became operational; the types of participants
    eligible to participate;\8 and the numbers of persons who had been
    admitted, had completed, had failed to complete, and were actively
    participating in the program as of December 31, 1996.  In addition,
    we interviewed officials from the Drug Court Clearinghouse and NADCP
    and reviewed documents regarding these issues.

    To determine the extent to which program and participant data are
    maintained by and used to evaluate drug court programs, we included
    questions about whether the drug court programs had program
    monitoring, tracking, and evaluation capabilities, and about the
    types of data on program participants that were maintained and
    whether the data were computerized.  We also spoke to representatives
    of DOJ's DCPO and BJA within OJP; CSAT, HHS; HUD; NADCP; and the Drug
    Court Clearinghouse about the guidance for these areas and reviewed
    the guidelines and standards they have provided.

    To determine what conclusions could be drawn from existing published
    and unpublished evaluations or assessments of drug court programs, we
    first had to identify these studies.  To do this, we used the same
    multistep process that we used to identify drug court programs.
    Additionally, in our survey, we asked respondents whether there had
    been any published or unpublished evaluations of their drug court
    programs, and if so, to send a copy of the report.

    We collected and reviewed information from 20 published and
    unpublished evaluation studies that were written between 1991 and
    1997 and covered 16 drug court programs that began operations between
    1989 and 1996.  (One program, in Broward County, FL, was covered by
    three independent evaluations; and two programs, in Dade County, FL,
    and Los Angeles County, CA, were covered by two evaluations.) A
    summary of the outcomes reported in the 20 studies and our assessment
    of them are contained in appendix III.  The studies we reviewed
    represent all of the primary studies we could obtain in time for this
    report that included, in addition to a description of program
    operations, an evaluation component (i.e., some information on the
    outcome or efficacy of the drug court program in preventing relapse
    into drug use or criminal recidivism).  In our search for these
    evaluation studies, we identified a variety of other published and
    unpublished documents that described program objectives and
    operations, provided judicial commentary on these programs, and, in
    some cases, provided a summary description of a number of programs.
    This fuller set of materials pertaining to drug court programs is
    provided in the bibliography.

    We used a data collection instrument to systematically analyze and
    evaluate these studies in terms of the information they provided on
    program coverage (e.g., admissions criteria and participation rates),
    program operations (e.g., program length, treatment components, and
    completions rates), and program outcomes (e.g., drug use relapse and
    criminal recidivism).  We did not attempt to independently verify the
    information provided in these studies.  Each study was read and coded
    by a social scientist with training in research methods.  A second
    social scientist and other members of our evaluation team then read
    the studies to verify the accuracy of the items included on the data
    collection instrument.

    Our review was done from October 1996 to May 1997 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.  In June 1997, we
    provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General; the
    Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, HHS; the
    Executive Director of SJI; the President of NADCP; and the Project
    Director of the Drug Court Clearinghouse for their comments.  Their
    written comments are characterized and evaluated in chapters 1, 2,
    and 5 and are reprinted in appendixes V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of
    this report.  In addition, all of the agencies and organizations
    provided some minor technical changes, which have been appropriately
    incorporated throughout this report.

    --------------------
    \7 We did not survey six drug court programs because they were not
    identified by information obtained from various sources as operating
    as of December 31, 1996, until after May 15, 1997.  This was well
    after the completion of our survey of drug court programs.

    \8 The categories used in our survey instrument to gather information
    on the type of violent offenders eligible to participate in drug
    court programs asked the survey respondents to use their
    jurisdiction's definition of a violent offense, which may or may not
    be the same as the federal definition of a violent offense as defined
    in the Violent Crime Act authorizing grants to drug court programs.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:8

    In its written comments, HHS expressed concerns with the scope of our
    mandated study of drug court programs.  HHS specifically noted that
    our study did not include an examination of the clinical aspects of
    drug court programs and opined that the rate at which drug court
    programs succeed in their purpose--reducing drug-related crime--is
    dependent on the quality and effectiveness of the substance abuse
    treatment provided as a part of the program.  In addition, HHS urged
    that all future studies conducted under this mandate recognize the
    inter-dependency among the several participating disciplines.

    While we recognize HHS's concerns, a review of the adequacy of the
    drug treatment component would have been well beyond the objectives
    and scope of this overview assessment of drug court programs.

    NUMBER OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS AND
    AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING HAVE
    INCREASED
    ============================================================ Chapter 2

    There has been a substantial increase in the number of operating drug
    court programs in the United States and the availability of funding
    to support and/or evaluate such programs.  Between 1989 and 1994, 42
    programs were started.\1 Since then, the total number of operating
    programs has grown to 161 as of March 31, 1997.  Moreover, the number
    of new drug court programs is expected to continue to grow, with an
    additional 154 programs identified as either about to start, being
    planned, or in the feasibility study stage as of March 31, 1997.  On
    the basis of our analysis of data obtained from federal funding
    sources and drug court program officials, over $125 million has been
    made available to plan, implement, enhance, and/or evaluate drug
    court programs.  Federal funding, which has increased substantially
    since 1993,\2 has provided over $80 million of the funding.  Over 95
    percent of the federal funding has been provided through federal
    grants administered by DOJ and HHS.  In addition, drug court programs
    reported that about $45 million was provided by state and local
    governments, private sources, and/or fees collected from program
    participants since 1989.

    --------------------
    \1 This number, which is based on our independent survey and other
    sources, differs from the 36 drug court programs cited in our prior
    report (GAO/GGD-95-159BR) as started between 1989 and 1994, which was
    based on information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse at
    the time.

    \2 Although we did not analyze the extent of increases in state and
    local funding, it has also likely to have increased due to the
    requirements for matching funds associated with most federal grants.

       GROWTH IN NUMBER OF DRUG COURT
       PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

    As figure 2.1 shows, the number of operating drug court programs has
    increased substantially since 1994.  Between 1989 and 1994, 42 drug
    court programs had started.  Since then, 4 have closed and 123 more
    have started, bringing the total number of operating programs to 161
    as of March 31, 1997.  An additional 32 drug court programs are
    expected to begin operating in 1997, which would bring the total to
    193 operational programs by the end of 1997.  Figure 2.2 shows the
    number of drug court programs started each year since 1989.

       Figure 2.1:  Increase in the
       Number of Drug Court Programs
       Between 1989 and March 31, 1997

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  One drug court, which opened in 1989, closed in 1994; two drug
    courts, which opened in 1995, and one, which opened in 1996, closed
    during 1996.  These drug courts closed due to lack of funding and/or
    because of state/local government decisions not to continue the
    programs.

    Sources:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996, and information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

       Figure 2.2:  Number of Drug
       Court Programs Started Between
       1989 and March 31, 1997

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Sources:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996, and information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

    As of December 31, 1994, drug court programs were operating in 17
    states and the District of Columbia.  As figure 2.3 shows, as of
    March 31, 1997, drug court programs were operating in 38 states, the
    District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  About 40 percent of these
    programs were located in California and Florida.

       Figure 2.3:  Comparison of Drug
       Court Program Locations as of
       December 31, 1994, and March
       31, 1997

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Sources:  GAO survey of drug
       court programs operating as of
       December 31, 1996, and
       information obtained from Drug
       Court Clearinghouse.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    The growth in the number of drug court programs is likely to continue
    over the next few years.  In this regard, our review revealed that an
    additional 154 drug court programs were identified as either about to
    start, being planned, or in the feasibility study stage as of March
    31, 1997.  Also, 8 of the 12 states without drug court programs and 1
    additional U.S.  territory (Guam) were either about to start,
    planning, or studying the feasibility of starting a drug court
    program.  Appendix IV provides summary information on the status of
    drug court programs by jurisdiction as of March 31, 1997.

       SOURCES OF AND INCREASE IN DRUG
       COURT PROGRAM FUNDING
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

    Overall, our analysis of funding data and information obtained from
    various federal and nonfederal funding sources and funding data
    reported by drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996,
    shows that since 1989, over $125 million in resources derived from
    federal, state, and local governments; private sources; and
    participant fees have been provided to plan, implement, enhance,
    and/or evaluate drug court programs.\3

    According to our analysis of data obtained from federal funding
    sources and drug court program officials, federal funding sources,
    which have increased substantially since 1993, have provided over $80
    million in funding.

    Drug court programs we surveyed reported that about $45 million was
    provided by state and local governments, private sources, and/or fees
    collected from program participants since 1989.  However, in
    commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ, NADCP, and the Drug Court
    Clearinghouse expressed the opinion that this amount may understate
    the actual amount of funding provided by state and local governments
    and other sources because some of the respondents to our survey may
    have failed to include the state/local jurisdictions' contributions
    towards the administrative cost of the program staff (judges,
    prosecutors, pretrial service staff, court clerks, program
    coordinators, etc.) and/or cost of program facilities (courthouse and
    other administrative facilities) that are often contributed by the
    local jurisdiction.

    While several of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed were unable
    to provide precise funding data, as figure 2.4 shows, about 80
    percent of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed, reported that
    they had received federal funding, over 80 percent reported receiving
    state/local government funding, and about two-thirds reported that
    they had collected funds from fees assessed on drug court program
    participants.

       Figure 2.4:  Percentage of Drug
       Court Programs Reporting
       Receiving Various Types of
       Funding

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996.

    --------------------
    \3 The total amount of funding supporting drug court programs is
    likely understated because (1) some drug court programs we surveyed
    were not able to determine the amount of funding they received from
    federal, state, and local governments; private funding sources;
    and/or participant fees and (2) certain multipurpose federal funding
    sources, which did not specifically target drug court programs, had
    not been tracking the funding of drug court programs.  In addition,
    information on the total amount of HHS CSAT' Block Grants for
    Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse and HUD's Community
    Development Block Grant funding that were awarded to jurisdictions
    and used to support drug court programs, as well as Medicaid funding
    that may have been used by drug court participants to pay for the
    cost of treatment, was not available from the federal funding source.

          FEDERAL FUNDING HAS
          INCREASED
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

    The amount and sources of federal funding supporting drug court
    programs have increased substantially since fiscal year 1993.  Before
    the establishment of a new grant program by DOJ and the passage of
    the Violent Crime Act, there were no specific federal grants for drug
    court programs.  During this time, drug court programs were funded
    primarily by multipurpose federal grants from the Edward Byrne
    Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance\4 (Byrne block
    grant program) and Correctional Options Grants programs (a
    discretionary Byrne grant program) administered by BJA,\5 Block
    Grants for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment and other grants
    awarded by HHS' CSAT,\6 and SJI.\7 The amount of these federal grants
    supporting drug court programs totaled about $6 million.\8 Other
    funding was received from state and local governments, private
    sources, and fees assessed on program participants.

    Beginning in fiscal year 1994, additional federal funding sources
    became available through the Comprehensive Communities Program (a
    discretionary Byrne grant program), the passage of the Violent Crime
    Act, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program as authorized
    by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of
    1996 (P.L.  104-134).  Additional funding was also made available
    from the previously mentioned federal grant programs and other
    funding sources.  Excluding use of funds derived from HUD's Community
    Development Block

    Grant program and Medicaid, administered by HHS,\9 the amount of
    additional funds made available from new and existing funding sources
    totaled about $75 million from fiscal year 1994 through March 31,
    1997.

    --------------------
    \4 The Byrne program was first authorized in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
    of 1986 (P.L.  99-570).  Federal funding under this program consists
    of two discretionary programs and a formula block grant program that
    must be used to improve criminal justice systems in order to reduce
    violent crime, the demand for illegal drugs, or the availability of
    such drugs.  Discretionary funds administered under this program can
    be used to, among other things, establish demonstration projects and
    fund correctional options programs.  Under the Violent Crime Act, the
    Byrne program was authorized an additional $1 billion over fiscal
    years 1995 through 2000.

    \5 BJA, a component of OJP, DOJ, is authorized by Congress to award
    discretionary grants to public and private organizations for national
    scope, demonstration, training, and technical assistance programs
    that strengthen the nation's criminal justice system and assist state
    and local governments in reducing and preventing violent crime and
    drug abuse.

    \6 Under Title 42 (Sec.  290bb-4(a)) of the U.S.  Code, the Director
    of CSAT is to provide grants to public and nonprofit private entities
    that provide treatment for substance abuse to individuals under
    criminal justice supervision.

    \7 SJI reported that, in addition to funding other programs and
    initiatives, it provides grants to support drug court programs'
    operations and evaluations, which require a 50-percent match.

    \8 Recipients of federal funds provided under some of these grant
    programs are required to provide anywhere from 10 to 25 percent in
    matching funds.

    \9 We were unable to include information on the growth or decline in
    the use of these funds to support drug court programs because
    information was not available from federal funding sources
    responsible for administering these programs.

          FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

    Federal funding intended specifically for drug court programs became
    available for the first time through DOJ's establishment of the
    Comprehensive Communities Program in fiscal year 1994.\10

    In fiscal year 1995, DOJ's DCPO began administering the Violent Crime
    Act grants to state and local jurisdictions for drug court programs.
    One year later, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program as
    authorized by the Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations
    Act of 1996 also made federal funds available for several purposes,
    including drug court programs.

    --------------------
    \10 Funding provided to support drug court programs under the
    Comprehensive Communities Program was derived from $1.2 million in
    funds transferred in late fiscal year 1994 from the Byrne program
    administered by DOJ's BJA, and $1.2 million in fiscal year 1995
    funding that was transferred from DOJ's DCPO Violent Crime Act
    funding.

             COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITIES
             PROGRAM FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.1

    In 1994, BJA, under its authority to make grants to states for, among
    other things, improving the functioning of the criminal justice
    system, began implementation of a comprehensive community program
    based on the crime control program in 16 U.S.  jurisdictions.  The
    objectives of the Comprehensive Communities Program are to, among
    other things, develop a comprehensive, multiagency strategy to
    control and prevent violent crime and drug-related crime and to
    coordinate existing federal, state, local, and private agency
    resources to maximize their impact on reducing violent crime and
    drug-related crime.  Funding under this program was directed to be
    applied to seven local crime control and prevention initiatives,
    including the planning, implementation, or enhancement of drug court
    programs; alternatives to incarceration; and prosecution and
    diversion initiatives.  In fiscal year 1994, a total of $1.2 million
    was awarded to six jurisdictions for drug court programs using
    discretionary Byrne funds, and in fiscal year 1995, a total of $1.2
    million was awarded to six additional jurisdictions using Violent
    Crime Act funding.

             VIOLENT CRIME ACT FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.2

    As table 2.1 shows, Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act authorized
    $1 billion over 6 years (fiscal years 1995 to 2000) for drug court
    programs.  Actual appropriations for the first 3 fiscal years have
    been less than the authorized amount.  About $57 million of the $400
    million authorized by Congress for the first 3 fiscal years was
    actually appropriated as of March 31, 1997.

                                        Table 2.1

                         Schedule of the Violent Crime Act Grant
                           Authorizations, Appropriations, and
                                         Awards\a

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                                   Fiscal year
                              ------------------------------------------------------
                                1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000   Total
    ------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
    Congressional             $100.0  $150.0  $150.0  $200.0  $200.0  $200.0  $1,000
     authorization                                                                .0
    Congressional               11.9    15.0    30.0     n/a     n/a     n/a    56.9
     appropriation
    DOJ/DCPO                    $8.2    $8.4   $16.7     n/a     n/a     n/a   $33.3
     awards
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    n/a = No funds were appropriated as of March 31, 1997.

    \a As of March 31, 1997.

    Sources:  Public Law 103-322 and DOJ's DCPO.

    Of the $57 million appropriated by Congress, in addition to the
    transfer of $1.2 million to the Comprehensive Communities Program in
    fiscal year 1995, DCPO, as of March 31, 1997, had awarded about $33
    million in grants to over 150 jurisdictions to fund drug court
    programs.\11 DCPO can award three types of grants:\12

      -- Planning grants are for those jurisdictions that are interested
         in establishing drug court programs and are in the early
         planning stage for that effort.  In fiscal year 1995, a
         jurisdiction could receive up to $35,000 for a planning grant.
         For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the maximum award was $20,000
         per jurisdiction.

      -- 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.  The maximum
         award for implementation grants was $1 million for fiscal year
         1995 and $400,000 for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

      -- Enhancement grants are for those jurisdictions with established
         drug court programs to improve or enhance existing services.
         The maximum award for enhancement grants was $1 million in
         fiscal year 1995 and $300,000 for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

    Table 2.2 summarizes grants awarded for this source of funding.

                                        Table 2.2

                          Number and Amount of the Violent Crime
                             Act Grants Awarded to Drug Court
                             Programs, Fiscal Years 1995-1997

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                               Fiscal year
                      --------------------------------------------------------------
                           1995            1996           1997\a          Total
                      --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
                      Number  Amount  Number  Amount  Number  Amount  Grants  Amount
                          of  awarde      of  awarde      of  awarde  awarde  awarde
    Type of grant     grants       d  grants       d  grants       d       d       d
    ----------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
    Planning              52    $1.6       0      $0      79    $1.4     131    $3.0
    Implementation         5     3.9       9     3.5      38    12.0      52    19.4
    Enhancement            7     2.7       7     4.9      12     3.2      26    10.8
    ================================================================================
    Total                 64    $8.2      16    $8.4     129   $16.6     209   $33.2
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a As of March 31, 1997.

    Source:  DOJ's DCPO.

    --------------------
    \11 According to DOJ officials, the remaining funds were allocated
    for management and administrative purposes (at approximately 1
    percent of the annual amount appropriated) and to fund technical
    assistance, training, and evaluations being sponsored by NIJ (at
    approximately 5 to 6 percent of the annual DCPO appropriation).  In
    addition, DCPO plans to issue additional fiscal year 1997 drug court
    program awards of approximately $12 million during July-August 1997.

    \12 Recipients of federal funds provided by DOJ's DCPO under the
    Violent Crime Act are required to provide at least 25 percent in
    matching funds from local sources.  In-kind contributions may
    constitute a portion of the nonfederal share.

             LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
             BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM
    ------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.3

    The Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
    authorized the Director of BJA to make funds available to units of
    local government under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program
    for the purposes of reducing crime and improving public safety.
    Grants awarded under this program could be for any of seven purpose
    areas, one of which was for establishing or supporting drug court
    programs.  For fiscal year 1996, $503 million was appropriated for
    the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program, but after deductions
    for legislatively mandated earmarks and program administration costs,
    $424 million remained available for distribution to eligible
    jurisdictions.  Of this amount, about $14.5 million was awarded to 93
    units of local government in 32 states for use by drug court
    programs.\13 In fiscal year 1997, $523 million was appropriated, of
    which about $467 million is available for distribution to eligible
    jurisdictions.  DOJ plans to make grants to eligible jurisdictions in
    mid-1997, including grants to fund drug court programs.

    --------------------
    \13 Recipients of federal funds provided under a grant for the Local
    Law Enforcement Block Grants program are required to provide at least
    10 percent in matching funds.

             OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING
             SOURCES
    ------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.4

    In addition to funding specifically designated for drug court
    programs, other multipurpose federal grants continued to be available
    and used to support drug court programs.  These sources included
    additional funding totaling about $14 million made available in
    fiscal years 1994 through 1996 by DOJ under the Byrne block grant and
    Correctional Options Grants programs and about $8 million from a
    variety of HHS' CSAT grants for drug court programs that were made
    available between fiscal years 1994 through 1997, including one new
    grant initiative, the Criminal Justice Treatment Networks,\14 which
    provided initial funding in fiscal year 1995, and CSAT's Target
    Cities initiative, which provided initial funding in fiscal year
    1993.\15

    SJI, a nonprofit organization created by federal law and funded
    through congressional appropriations, has provided about $1.6 million
    in support of drug court program initiatives (primarily funding
    evaluation studies) since 1990.  In addition, some drug court
    programs also reported receiving funds during our survey period that
    were derived from other federal funding sources (totaling about $2.1
    million) that included, among others, about $104,500 in funds derived
    from HUD's Community Development Block Grant program and about
    $49,000 in Medicaid funds.  As previously noted, the total amount of
    HUD grants and Medicaid resources used to support drug court
    operations was not directly available from either the funding sources
    or all of the recipients.

    Excluding funding that may have been derived from HUD's Community
    Development Block Grant program and Medicaid, table 2.3 shows federal
    funding awarded to drug court programs from fiscal year 1990 to March
    31, 1997.  Fiscal years 1990 to 1993 funding totaled about $6
    million, and fiscal year 1994 to March 31, 1997, funding totaled
    about $75 million.

                                        Table 2.3

                          Summary of Federal Funding Provided to
                         Drug Court Programs, Fiscal Years 1990-
                                           1997

                                  (Dollars in thousands)

                                           Fiscal year
             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal
    funding
    sources    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996  1997\a    Total
    -------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  =======
    Departm
     ent
     of
     Justic
     e\b
    Byrne      $188    $740    $263  $1,658  $2,041  $5,265  $4,532     0\c  $14,687
     block
     grants
    Compreh     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a   1,200   1,200     0\d     0\d    2,400
     ensive
     Commun
     ities
     Progra
     m
    Correct     n/a     n/a     500     999   1,100     690     370   n/a\e    3,659
     ional
     Option
     s
     Grants
    Violent     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a   8,216   8,366  16,671   33,253
     Crime
     Act
     Fundin
     g\f
    Local       n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a  14,455     0\h   14,455
     Law                                                         \g
     Enforc
     ement
     Block
     Grants
    Departm
     ent
     of
     Health
     and
     Human
     Servic
     es\i

    CSAT Grants for Substance Abuse Treatment in State and Local Criminal Justice
    System
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    D.C.        n/a     n/a     n/a     799       0   2,307       0     430    3,536
     Superi
     or
     Court
     Drug
     Interv
     ention
     Projec
     t
    Crimina     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a   1,800   2,568       0    4,368
     l
     Justic
     e
     Treatm
     ent
     Networ
     ks

    CSAT Grants for Treatment Improvement
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Target      n/a     n/a     n/a      20     310     578     275       0    1,183
     Cities
     Grants
    State
     Justice
     Instit
     ute
    SJI         123       0     228     313     245     410       0     319    1,638
     Grants
     \j
    ================================================================================
    Total      $311    $740    $991  $3,789  $4,896  $20,46  $30,56  $17,42  $79,179
                                                          6       6       0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    n/a = Funds for this program were not applicable during this fiscal
    year.

    Note:  The total noted above excludes about $2.1 million in federal
    funds that were derived from other federal sources not noted in the
    table.  Also, funds provided by DOJ and other federal agencies that
    may have been used for evaluation, technical assistance, and/or
    training for drug court programs or officials may not be reflected in
    the totals.  As a result, the total amount provided likely
    understates the total amount of federal financial support for drug
    court programs.

    \a As of March 31, 1997.

    \b Federal funds awarded by DOJ under its various grant programs must
    be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and not
    replace funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose.

    \c DOJ did not provide information for fiscal year 1997 funding
    noting, that it is very unlikely that states have begun funding
    subgrantees, and that it would therefore give a very false impression
    of the level of funding for the fiscal year.

    \d DOJ was unable to provide specific information on the amount of
    funding for this fiscal year.  According to DOJ officials, BJA's
    Comprehensive Communities Program saw a significant reduction in
    funding in fiscal year 1996, with no significant increases
    anticipated in the future.

    \e The Correctional Options Grants program was zeroed out in fiscal
    year 1996, and no additional funding was made available for fiscal
    year 1997.  DOJ officials noted that no further federal support of
    this initiative is anticipated.

    \f The Violent Crime Act also authorized funding for, among other
    things, program administration and management, technical assistance
    and training, and a federally funded impact evaluation of the drug
    court program.

    \g Represents the estimated amount jurisdictions reported to DOJ as
    identified for drug court program use.

    \h According to DOJ officials, fiscal year 1997 LLEBG awards will be
    made by the end of fiscal year.

    \i CSAT also provided additional funding between fiscal years 1993
    and 1997 totalling about $1.1 million under its authority to award
    grants for substance abuse treatment in criminal justice systems and
    its authority to issue Block Grants for Substance Abuse Prevention
    and Treatment.  These grants were provided primarily for technical
    assistance, publications, and conferences/meetings, and is not
    included in the totals provided.  Given jurisdictional discretion for
    awarding block grant funds received from CSAT, the total amount of
    funds awarded under CSAT's block grant program to various state and
    local jurisdiction was not available from either the funding source
    or the grant recipient and is therefore likely understated.

    \j Grants awarded by SJI have been primarily awarded for efforts to
    evaluate drug court programs and to support judicial education
    programs about drug courts.  Only small-scale planning,
    implementation, and enhancement projects have been supported through
    SJI technical assistance grants.  (The 1995 funding included a
    $355,000 grant to support a National Symposium on Drug Courts
    conducted by the American University.)

    Source:  GAO analysis of information obtained from federal funding
    sources.

    As figure 2.5 shows, information obtained from federal funding
    sources indicates that about 40 percent (or about $33 million) of the
    identified federal funding for these programs has been derived from
    the Violent Crime Act funding administered by DOJ's DCPO.  Also, DOJ
    and HHS accounted for over 95 percent of the federal funding
    supporting drug court programs operations and/or evaluation studies.

       Figure 2.5:  Percentage of
       Federal Funding, by Source

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

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

    \a Byrne discretionary grant program.

    Sources:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996, and information obtained directly from federal funding
    sources.

    --------------------
    \14 CSAT's Criminal Justice Treatment Networks focuses on the
    involvement of three clusters of the U.S.  population:  adult
    females, adult males, and juveniles.  Funding has generally been
    provided to jurisdictions with the ability to participate in CSAT
    knowledge generation activities through cross-site evaluation efforts
    and contribution of data derived from these clusters.

    \15 CSAT's Target Cities grants are intended to, among other things,
    further knowledge about treatment and facilitate early access to
    treatment.

          STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

    Respondents to our survey reported that over $38 million was provided
    by state and local governments.\16 A portion of this amount
    represents required state/local government matching of federal funds.

    --------------------
    \16 The total amount of state/local government funding supporting
    drug court programs is likely understated because some drug court
    programs were not able to determine the amount of funding they
    received from their state or local governments.  In addition, 21 drug
    court programs who reported that they were receiving federal grants
    requiring matching funds did not report required state and local
    matching funds.  We discussed this matter with DOJ officials and
    suggested that they follow up to determine whether these drug courts
    are in compliance with the matching requirements for federal funding.
    We plan to follow up on what actions DOJ has taken.

          PRIVATE FUNDING
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

    Respondents to our survey reported that about $3 million of the drug
    court program funding came from private sources, such as
    grants/donations from foundations, corporations, or charitable
    organizations, etc.

          PARTICIPANT FEES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.5

    Sixty-five percent of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996, reported that they charged participant fees for some of the
    services provided.  These programs reported that they assessed a
    variety of fees, with most assessing fees for drug treatment and drug
    testing that program participants are required to undergo.  Among
    other things, drug court programs assessed fees to cover
    administrative and court processing costs, supervision, counseling,
    housing, and transportation.  Some also assessed participant fees as
    penalties or incentives for improvement.  In many of the drug court
    programs, the reported participant fee amount assessed varied, and in
    some cases, depended on the ability of the program participant to
    pay.  The reported fees assessed on program participants varied
    within and across programs from $1 for drug testing in one program to
    a maximum program fee of $4,625 for certain higher income
    participants in another program.  Participant fees accounted for
    about $2.5 million of the reported funding.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

    In their comments on a draft of this report, DOJ, NADCP, and the Drug
    Court Clearinghouse expressed concern with our estimate of the
    proportion of drug court costs that were funded by the federal
    government.  We reconsidered the information we had available to make
    that estimate, and decided in retrospect not to present the
    information in the same way.  While we were able to derive what we
    believe to be reliable estimates of federal funds from federal
    funding sources, we were unable to derive direct estimates of state
    and local funds, except as they were reported to us by the drug court
    program officials we surveyed, which in some cases included judges,
    court administrators, program directors and managers, and/or state
    and local budget officials.  Accordingly, we have deleted parts of
    our draft report that previously provided a comparative analysis on
    the proportion of federal funding among all drug court funds, and
    revised the presentation to focus on levels and sources of funding
    without comparing them directly to funds from other sources.

    APPROACHES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND
    COMPLETION AND RETENTION RATES OF
    EXISTING DRUG COURT PROGRAMS WERE
    DIVERSE
    ============================================================ Chapter 3

    Drug court programs identified as operating as of December 31, 1996,
    reported using various approaches.  Although all the programs
    responding to our survey reported having a treatment component,
    results from a Drug Court Clearinghouse survey showed that the type
    and extent of treatment and rehabilitative services provided to drug
    court program participants varied among programs.  In addition, drug
    court programs reported that they targeted various populations,
    including adults, women, juveniles, nonviolent and violent offenders,
    offenders with and without a substance addiction, first-time and
    repeat offenders, and probation violators.  Drug court programs most
    frequently reported that program participants were adult, nonviolent
    offenders with a substance addiction.  Since 1989, over 65,000 people
    were reportedly admitted to drug court programs in the United States.
    The completion rates for drug court program participants were
    reported to range from about 8 percent to 95 percent, and the
    retention rates ranged from about 31 percent to 100 percent.\1

    --------------------
    \1 "Completion rates" and "retention rates" are indicators commonly
    used in the drug court community to measure the impact of drug court
    programs.  "Completion rates" refer to individuals who completed or
    were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a percentage
    of the total number admitted and not still enrolled.  This measure is
    an indicator of the extent to which offenders successfully complete
    their drug court program requirements.  "Retention rates" refer to
    individuals who are currently active participants in or have
    successfully completed a drug court program as a percentage of the
    total number admitted.  This measure is an indicator of the extent to
    which a program has been successful at graduating or retaining
    offenders as active program participants in the program at the time
    of our survey.  Although interrelated, both measures are helpful in
    assessing program performance.  A program that had been operating
    consistently over a longer period of time would be expected to have
    similar completion and retention rates.

       DRUG COURT PROGRAMS REPORTED
       USING VARIOUS APPROACHES TO
       PROCESS OFFENDERS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

    Some drug court programs responded that they deferred prosecuting
    (diversion) offenders who entered their program, some allowed
    offenders to enter their program after their case had been
    adjudicated, others used both approaches, and some used other
    approaches, including allowing offenders to enter their program on a
    trial basis after entering a plea.  As figure 3.1 shows, about 44
    percent of the drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996,
    reported using a deferred prosecution (diversion) approach to
    adjudicate drug offenders, about 38 percent said that they use a
    postadjudication approach, about 10 percent said that they use both
    deferred prosecution and postadjudication, and about 8 percent said
    that they use the hybrid plea or some other approach.

       Figure 3.1:  Various Approaches
       Used by Drug Court Programs to
       Process Cases of Program
       Participants

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996.

       DRUG COURT PROGRAMS GENERALLY
       REPORTED VARYING TYPES AND
       RANGE OF TREATMENT SERVICES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

    All of the drug court programs responding to our survey reported
    having a treatment component as a part of the overall drug court
    program.  Twenty percent of the drug court programs reported having a
    waiting list for treatment, and about 82 percent reported that
    participants generally start treatment within 7 days.

    Our survey did not cover types of treatment.  However, according to
    results from a 1997 survey conducted by the Drug Court Clearinghouse
    of drug court programs, the type and extent of treatment provided to
    program participants varied among drug court programs.  The Drug
    Court Clearinghouse survey found that the range of treatment and
    rehabilitation services being delivered by drug court programs were
    expanding significantly.  Treatment providers for 72 drug court
    programs that responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse's survey
    generally reported using an array of substance abuse and individual
    rehabilitation services, including detoxification, stabilization,
    counseling, therapy, drug education, and relapse prevention.\2

    Other services relating to personal and educational development, such
    as job skills and employment services, were reported as frequently
    provided after participants have responded to initial detoxification
    and stabilization.  Housing, family, and medical services were also
    reported as being frequently available throughout the program.  All
    but four of the reporting programs indicated the use of
    individualized client treatment plans for drug court participants.\3
    About 40 percent of the programs responding to the Drug Court
    Clearinghouse survey reported that they also used acupuncture as an
    adjunct to treatment services.

    According to the results of the Drug Court Clearinghouse's survey,
    drug court programs have also expanded their treatment and
    rehabilitation services to recognize the diversity of both treatment
    and other needs of program participants and to treat not only the
    participant's addiction but the numerous associated personal problems
    most participants encounter (e.g, physical, mental, housing, family,
    employment, self-esteem, etc.).  Results from the Drug Court
    Clearinghouse survey show that some drug court programs have also
    established specific ethnic and/or cultural sensitive treatment
    components and have focused on special classes of defendants (e.g.,
    pregnant women, mothers, fathers, and persons who have been sexually
    abused).

    The Drug Court Clearinghouse survey also showed that drug court
    programs generally provided treatment in about three or more phases,
    with the most intensive phase occurring during the first 30 to 90
    days.  During this phase, program participants are usually subject to
    (1) frequent visits to a treatment provider, which some programs
    reported requiring a weekly visit, others three visits per week, and
    in some more extensive programs, four to five visits per week; (2)
    frequent drug tests, which some programs reported as required once a
    week and others twice a week; and (3) face-to-face contact with the
    drug court judge, which also varied among the programs from weekly to
    biweekly.

    Drug court programs responding to the Drug Court Clearinghouse survey
    generally reported that, decreases and/or increases in the intensity
    and length of treatment services for a participant were usually
    determined by the treatment provider based on criteria similar to
    that used to make recommendations regarding the movement of
    participants from one program phase to another (e.g., drug test
    results, attendance at counseling sessions, and length of time in the
    program).  The Drug Court Clearinghouse survey also showed that most
    drug court programs require a minimum period of participation and
    sobriety.  Although this requirement also varied among programs, it
    was generally reported that at least 12 months of participation and
    being drug free for a period of at least 4 to 6 months was required
    for program completion.

    --------------------
    \2 Drug court programs responding to the Drug Court Clearinghouse
    survey generally reported that they did not maintain the capability
    to refer program participants to inpatient treatment for more than 30
    days.

    \3 About 40 percent of the programs indicated that they updated these
    plans every 30 days, 10 percent every 60 days, and the remaining 50
    percent every 90 days.

       DRUG COURT PROGRAMS REPORTED
       TARGETING A DIVERSE GROUP OF
       OFFENDERS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

    As table 3.1 shows, drug court programs responding to our survey
    reported targeting various types of offenders, including adults,
    women, juveniles, nonviolent and violent offenders, offenders with
    and without a substance addiction, first-time and repeat offenders,
    and probation violators.  About 16 percent of the drug court programs
    we surveyed reported that juveniles were eligible to participate in
    their drug court program, about 6 percent allowed offenders with a
    current conviction for a violent offense, about 16 percent allowed
    offenders with a prior conviction for a violent offense,\4 about 17
    percent allowed offenders without a substance addiction,\5 about 78
    percent allowed repeat offenders, and about 63 percent allowed
    probation violators.  However, drug court programs most frequently
    reported that eligible program participants were adult, nonviolent
    offenders with a substance addiction.

                                   Table 3.1

                       Types of Participants Reported as
                     Eligible to Participate in Drug Court
                                    Programs

                                                           Percent of drug
                                                            court programs
                                                                  allowing
    Type of eligible program participants                    participation
    --------------------------------------------------  ------------------
    Adult males                                                         87
    Adult women                                                         88
    Juveniles                                                           16
    Nonviolent offenders                                                93
    Offenders whose current conviction                                   6
     included a violent offense
    Offenders convicted of any                                          16
     previous violent offense
    Offenders with a substance                                          96
     addiction
    Offenders without a                                                 17
     substance addiction
    First-time offenders                                                84
    Repeat offenders                                                    78
    Probation violators                                                 63
    Other types of offenders\a                                           8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a These other types of offenders included child welfare,
    guardianship, neglect or abuse cases, and violators of court- ordered
    treatment.

    Source:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996.

    --------------------
    \4 Our analysis of drug court programs' responses to our survey
    showed that about 10 drug court programs that reported receiving
    grant funds under the Violent Crime Act also reported that certain
    violent offenders, using their jurisdiction's definition of a violent
    offender, were eligible to participate in their programs.  As
    discussed previously in this report, the act prohibits grants from
    being awarded to any drug court program that admits certain violent
    offenders.  We discussed this matter with DOJ officials and plan to
    follow up with them on this issue.

    \5 According to HHS officials and other drug court program
    stakeholders, persons admitted without substance addictions are
    likely to include persons with substance abuse problems who were not
    identified as being addicted during their initial screening.  Also,
    some drug court programs target special populations who may not have
    a substance addiction.  For example, the Jackson County, MO, drug
    court program, in addition to targeting others, targets prostitutes
    because of the likelihood that their drug abuse is the reason for
    their criminal behavior.  Another program in Las Vegas, NV, targets
    parents or guardians of juveniles who have been identified as having
    a substance addiction.

       REPORTED COMPLETION AND
       RETENTION RATES OF DRUG COURT
       PROGRAMS VARIED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

    Drug court programs responding to our survey reported that, as of
    December 31, 1996, 65,921 people had been admitted to drug court
    programs in the United States since 1989.  As figure 3.2 shows, of
    the 65,921 people admitted, about 31 percent (20,594) had completed
    drug court programs, and about 24 percent (16,051) had failed to
    complete the program because they were terminated for various
    reasons, including drug relapse or criminal recidivism, or because
    they voluntarily withdrew or died while in the program.

    Forty percent, or 26,465 offenders, were reported to be enrolled in
    drug court programs as of December 31, 1996.  Of the 26,465
    enrollees, about 25 percent, or 6,564, did not regularly attend the
    program or were wanted on bench warrants for failure to appear.\6
    This rate is slightly lower than the 27-percent rate reported by DOJ
    for felony drug defendants released before case disposition who fail
    to make scheduled court appearances.\7

    Three of the 134 drug court programs responding to our survey were
    unable to accurately account for the status of the remaining 4
    percent, or about 2,800 offenders, due to loss of data files or
    inadequate recordkeeping systems.  One additional drug court program
    was unable to provide information for program participants between
    1993 and 1994.

       Figure 3.2:  Status of Drug
       Court Program Participants
       Admitted Since 1989, as of
       December 31, 1996

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Less than 1 percent or 100 drug court program participants
    died while in the drug court program.

    Source:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996.

    --------------------
    \6 The median for the 128 drug court programs that were able to
    account for the status of enrolled program participants was 5
    inactive participants; one drug court program accounted for about
    1,200 of the 6,564 inactive enrollees.

    \7 "Drugs and Crime Facts," 1994.  DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

          RANGE OF REPORTED COMPLETION
          AND RETENTION RATES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1

    As table 3.2 shows, the completion rates for program participants in
    56 of the 62 drug court programs we surveyed that were operational as
    of December 31, 1996, for more than 18 months, ranged from 8 to 95
    percent.\8 The average completion rate for these drug court programs
    was about 48 percent.

    The retention rates for 131 of the 134 drug court programs we
    surveyed that were operating as of December 31, 1996, also
    varied--ranging from a low of about 31 percent to a high of 100
    percent.\9 The average retention rate for these programs was about 71
    percent.  In comparison, the OJP Drug and Crime Working Group, in a
    January 1996 report, noted that available research findings indicated
    that relatively few individuals remained in drug treatment programs,
    in general, long enough to show reduced recidivism and other
    favorable treatment outcomes.  The study also noted that persons who
    attended and remained in drug treatment programs for a sufficient
    length of time showed reduced recidivism and other favorable
    outcomes.

                                        Table 3.2

                          Completion and Retention Rates of Drug
                         Court Programs Operating as of December
                                         31, 1996

    Jurisdiction of     Start      Total offenders    Completio
    drug court program  date           admitted          n rate    Retention rate
    ------------------  --------  ------------------  ---------  -------------------
    Birmingham, AL      Jan.             150                n/a          89%
     (adult)             1996
    Birmingham, AL      Jan.             105                n/a          90%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Mobile, AL          Feb.             542                39%          52%
                         1993
    Phoenix, AZ         Mar.              \a                 \b          \b
                         1992
    Little Rock, AR     June             640                31%          42%
                         1994
    Bakersfield, CA     July            1,375               59%          66%
                         1993
    Chico, CA           June             375                34%          49%
                         1995
    El Monte, CA        July              87                69%          77%
                         1994
    Fresno, CA          March            825                n/a          93%
                         1996
    Los Angeles, CA     May 1994         404                39%          52%
     (adult)
    Modesto, CA         June              78                22%          69%
                         1995
    Oakland, CA         Jan.            6,579               43%          48%
     (adult/Diversion    1991
     Court)
    Oakland, CA                         1,879               n/a          62%
     (adult/             Jan.
     postadjudication)   1995
    Pasadena, CA        May 1995          30                42%          63%
    Porterville, CA     Apr.             107                n/a          78%
                         1996
    Riverside, CA       Sept.             98                n/a          66%
                         1995
    Roseville, CA       Sept.             49                n/a          71%
                         1995
    Sacramento, CA      Mar.             341                n/a          41%
                         1996
    Salinas, CA         July             125                n/a          50%
                         1995
    San Bernardino, CA  Nov.             267                65%          72%
                         1994
    San Francisco, CA   Mar.             282                32%          60%
     (adult)             1995
    San Jose, CA        Sept.            159                n/a          81%
     (adult)             1995
    San Jose, CA        Aug.              25                n/a          88%
     (juvenile)          1996
    San Mateo, CA       Oct.             304                n/a          47%
                         1995
    Santa Anna, CA      Mar.              74                71%          84%
     (adult)             1995
    Santa Barbara, CA   Mar.              86                n/a          57%
                         1996
    Santa Maria, CA     Mar.              98                n/a          60%
                         1996
    Santa Monica, CA    Jan.              75                n/a          35%
                         1996
    Santa Rosa, CA      Feb.              88                n/a          77%
                         1996
    Stockton, CA        July             357                n/a          44%
                         1995
    Tulare, CA (adult)  May 1996          45                n/a          78%
    Tulare, CA          Oct.             147                n/a          62%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Ukiah, CA           Sept.             20                n/a          85%
                         1996
    Ventura, CA         Apr.             157                35%          61%
                         1995
    Visalia, CA         Mar.              31                n/a          32%
     (adult)             1996
    Woodland, CA        Mar.             577                35%          59%
                         1995
    Yosemite National                     31                68%          71%
     Park, CA            Jan.
     (Federal Court)     1995
    Denver, CO          July            2,900             28%\c         68%\c
                         1994
    New Haven, CT       July              45                n/a          84%
                         1996
    Dover, DE           Apr.              84                n/a          87%
                         1996
    Georgetown, DE      Apr.              75                n/a          88%
                         1996
    Wilmington, DE      Oct.             980                61%          68%
     (adult)             1993
    Wilmington, DE      Sept.             99                n/a          91%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Washington, D.C.    Jul.             913                48%          51%
     (adult)             1994
    Bartow, FL          Dec.             377                29%          61%
                         1994
    Crestview, FL       Oct.             179                50%          65%
                         1993
    Fort Lauderdale,    June            4,378               72%          76%
     FL (adult)          1991
    Gainesville, FL     Mar.             259                18%          37%
                         1994
    Jacksonville, FL    Sept.            325                40%          65%
                         1994
    Key West, Fl        May 1993         162                82%          82%
     (adult)
    Key West, Fl        April             22                n/a         100%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Marathon, FL        June              3                 n/a         100%
     (adult)             1995
    Marathon, FL        May 1996          14                n/a         100%
     (juvenile)
    Miami, FL           June            11,600              80%          73%
                         1989
    Pensacola, FL       June             440                46%          51%
     (adult)             1993
    Pensacola, FL       Feb.              30                n/a          93%
     (parents)           1996
    Pensacola, FL       April             35                n/a          86%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Plantation Key, FL  May 1995          4                 n/a         100%
     (adult)
    Plantation Key, FL  May 1996          24                n/a          75%
     (juvenile)
    Tallahassee, FL     Jan.             375                77%          85%
                         1994
    Tampa,FL (adult-    June             492                67%          68%
     diversion)          1992
    Tampa, FL                           3,782                 b           b
     (adult-             July
     postadjudication)   1994
    Tampa, FL           Feb.              88                n/a          89%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Viera, FL           Oct.             424                51%          70%
                         1994
    Macon, GA           Jan.             268                49%          70%
                         1994
    Honolulu, HI        Jan.             147                n/a          84%
                         1996
    Cook County, IL     Oct.              37                n/a          95%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Edwardsville, IL    March            104                n/a          64%
                         1996
    Markham, IL         March            875                62%          89%
                         1994
    Rockford, IL        Oct.              28                n/a          82%
                         1996
    Gary, IN            June             147                82%          88%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Gary, IN (adult)    Sept.             63                n/a          35%
                         1996
    Lake County, IN     Sept.             42                n/a          50%
                         1996
    Terre Haute, IN     Oct.              31                n/a          90%
                         1996
    Des Moines, IA      Sept.             28                n/a          64%
                         1996
    Wichita, KS         July             427                n/a          82%
                         1995
    Louisville, KY      July             281                33%          66%
                         1993
    Baton Rouge, LA     Jan.             567                67%          87%
     (adult)             1995
    Baltimore, MD                        827                53%          39%
     (adult-District)    March
                         1994
    Baltimore, MD       Oct.             317                 8%          44%
     (adult-Circuit)     1994
    Dorchester, MA      June             160                39%          71%
                         1995
    Worcester, MA       Feb.              57                n/a          72%
                         1996
    Kalamazoo, MI       June             306                37%          48%
     (females)           1992
    St. Joseph, MI      Oct.            1,884                \b          \b
                         1991
    Kansas City, MO     Oct.            1,964               21%          35%
                         1993
    Lexington, MO       June              10                n/a          90%
                         1996
    Missoula, MT        Oct.              8                 n/a         100%
     (juvenile)          1996
    Las Vegas, NV       Oct.            2,120               51%          55%
     (adult)             1992
    Las Vegas, NV       Apr.             195                63%          69%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Reno, NV (family)   Aug.              62                69%          82%
                         1994
    Reno, NV (adult)    July             438                n/a          74%
                         1995
    Reno, NV            July              30                n/a          80%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Camden, NJ          April             80                n/a          59%
                         1996
    Albuquerque, NM     Sept.             77                n/a          62%
                         1995
    Las Cruces, NM                        86                43%          69%
     (adult-             April
     Magistrate)         1995
    Las Cruces, NM                        59                n/a          80%
     (adult-             Dec.
     Municipal)          1995
    Mesilla, NM         April             19                50%          89%
                         1995
    Brooklyn, NY        June             258                n/a          72%
                         1996
    Buffalo, NY         Jan.             168                n/a          80%
                         1996
    Rochester, NY       Jan.             617                95%          83%
                         1995
    Suffolk County, NY  Sept.             62                n/a          90%
                         1996
    Charlotte, NC       Feb.             157                45%          73%
                         1995
    Person/Caswell      July              25                n/a          88%
     Counties, NC        1996
    Raleigh, NC         May 1996          32                n/a          66%
    Warrenton, NC       Dec.              5                 n/a         100%
                         1996
    Winston-Salem, NC   June              29                n/a          52%
                         1996
    Akron, OH           June             251                65%          75%
                         1995
    Butler County, OH   Sept.             25                n/a          80%
                         1996
    Cincinnati, OH      March            713                37%          73%
                         1995
    Dayton, OH (adult)  Jan.              57                n/a          77%
                         1996
    Sandusky, OH        April             12                n/a          92%
                         1996
    Guthrie, OK         March             40                33%          65%
                         1995
    Stillwater, OK      March            214                33%          52%
     (adult)             1995
    Tulsa, OK           May 1996          37                n/a          92%
    Eugene, OR          Sept.            445                20%          31%
                         1994
    Grants Pass, OR     March             65                n/a          58%
                         1996
    Klamath Falls, OR   March             35                n/a          63%
                         1996
    Portland, OR        Aug.            3,194               45%          52%
                         1991
    Roseburg, OR        Jan.              72                n/a          78%
                         1996
    Arecibo, PR         April             69                n/a         100%
                         1996
    Carolina, PR        April             27                n/a         100%
                         1996
    Ponce, PR           April            107                n/a          96%
                         1996
    Columbia, SC        Nov.              12                n/a          75%
                         1996
    Lexington, SC       July              28                n/a          71%
                         1996
    Austin, TX          Aug.             618                49%          66%
                         1993
    Beaumont, TX        March            338                34%          49%
                         1993
    Fort Worth, TX      Sept.            102                n/a          76%
                         1995
    Salt Lake City, UT  Oct.             128                n/a          88%
     (juvenile)          1995
    Salt Lake City, UT  July             124                n/a          66%
     (adult)             1996
    Roanoke, VA         Sept.            109                n/a          81%
                         1995
    Seattle, WA         Aug.             512                25%          43%
                         1994
    Spokane, WA         Jan.              52                n/a          69%
                         1996
    Tacoma, WA          Oct.             209                35%          60%
                         1994
    Madison, WI         June              16                n/a          81%
                         1996
    ================================================================================
    Total/Average                       65,921              48%          71%
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Completion rates (CR) were calculated by dividing the number
    of participants who have completed or were favorably discharged from
    a drug court program (G) by the number of participants who had been
    admitted (A) minus the number of participants actively (P) or
    inactively (NP) enrolled in the program; that is CR = G/(A-(P+NP)).
    Retention rates (RR) were calculated by dividing the sum of the
    graduates (G) and active participants (P) by the number of persons
    admitted; that is RR = (G+P)/A.  In a few of the drug court programs,
    the completion rate exceeded the retention rate because of the number
    of persons enrolled but not actively participating (NP).  For
    example, for the Dade County (FL) Drug Court program, where there
    were 11,600 persons admitted as of the time of our review, 7,770
    persons who had graduated, 670 persons who were still actively
    participating, and 1,200 who were still enrolled but not actively
    participating, the completion rate was 80 percent (i.e., CR =
    (7,770/(11,600-(670+1,200))), while the retention rate was 73 percent
    (i.e., RR = (7,770+670)/11,600).

    n/a = The drug court program had been operating for 18 months or less
    at the time of our survey, or 100 percent of the program participants
    reported as admitted were still active in the program.

    \a We were unable to include a total for offenders admitted to this
    program because drug court program officials were not able to provide
    an accurate account of offenders admitted to this program between
    1993 and 1994, and the status of those offenders due to a loss of
    data files and an inability to accurately recreate the information.

    \b We were unable to calculate a rate because drug court program
    officials were not able to determine the total number of program
    participants who had either successfully completed, failed to
    complete program requirements, and/or were inactively enrolled in
    their drug court program as of December 31, 1996 (i.e., persons who
    did not attend or were wanted on bench warrants for failure to
    appear).

    \c Rate provided may slightly underrepresent the true rate by about 1
    to 2 percent because information provided by drug court program
    officials in response to our survey did not account for the status of
    27 program participants identified as admitted.

    Source:  GAO analysis of data on program participants obtained from
    survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

    --------------------
    \8 Completion rates were not applicable for three of the programs
    because they had retained 100 percent of the program participants
    admitted at the time of our survey.  For the remaining three
    programs, we were unable to calculate a completion rate because
    complete information on the status of certain program participants
    could not be provided by the drug court program surveyed.

    \9 We were unable to calculate retention rates for three programs
    because complete information on the status of certain program
    participants could not be provided by the drug court program
    surveyed.

    EXCEPT FOR FOLLOW-UP DATA, MOST
    DRUG COURT PROGRAMS REPORTED
    MAINTAINING AND USING SUGGESTED
    MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION DATA
    ============================================================ Chapter 4

    DOJ and HHS' CSAT, which have provided over 95 percent of the federal
    funding and/or support for drug court program operations, and the
    NADCP Drug Court Standards Committee\1 suggest that drug court
    programs collect and maintain certain data on participants both
    during and after their participation in the program to help manage
    and/or evaluate the program.  Most of the drug court programs we
    surveyed reported that they collect and maintain most of the
    suggested types of data on program participants during their
    participation.  However, about two-thirds reported that they did not
    collect and maintain follow-up substance abuse relapse data on
    program participants after they left the program, and almost half of
    these programs reported that they did not collect and maintain
    follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction.  Collaborative efforts
    among stakeholders in the drug court community have been undertaken
    to study the feasibility of and deal with obstacles associated with a
    recognized need in the drug court community to collect and maintain
    follow-up data, as well as other data, on drug court program
    participants.

    --------------------
    \1 The Drug Court Standards Committee consists of a diverse group of
    drug court practitioners and other experts from across the country,
    brought together by NADCP through a cooperative agreement with DOJ's
    DCPO.  The committee includes representatives from courts,
    prosecution, public defense, treatment, pretrial services, case
    management, probation, court administration, and academia and others
    with drug court experience, including officials from DOJ's DCPO,
    NADCP, Drug Court Clearinghouse, and JMI.  Among others, HHS' CSAT,
    ONDCP, BJA, and SJI provided information that was used to assist the
    committee in developing its guidance.

       DOJ, HHS' CSAT, AND THE NADCP
       STANDARDS COMMITTEE GUIDELINES
       SUGGEST THAT DRUG COURT
       PROGRAMS MAINTAIN CERTAIN DATA
       ON PARTICIPANTS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

    DOJ's "Drug Court Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit"
    issued in 1996 require recipients of federal funds under Title V of
    the 1994 Violent Crime Act to demonstrate the capability to ensure
    adequate program management through ongoing monitoring, tracking, and
    program evaluation.  DOJ's "Drug Court Grant Program Guidelines and
    Application Kit" suggest that this be done through the design,
    implementation, and maintenance of an automated data collection
    system.  The guidelines further suggest that the following
    information be collected and available for impact evaluations on drug
    court program participants and, to the extent possible, on similarly
    situated nonparticipants:

      -- criminal justice history,

      -- history of substance abuse,

      -- level of use of controlled or addictive substances at the point
         of entry into the program,

      -- data on substance abuse relapse while in the program,

      -- data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime while in the
         program,

      -- completion/noncompletion of the drug court program,

      -- follow-up data on substance abuse relapse after completing the
         program, and

      -- follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime after
         completing the program.

    HHS' CSAT, in its 1996 guidance\2 addressing drug court programs, has
    adopted similar suggestions for collecting and maintaining data on
    program participants while in the program and, in its 1997 substance
    abuse treatment planning guidance, refers to DOJ's suggestion that
    drug court programs collect and maintain follow-up drug use relapse
    and criminal recidivism data.  The NADCP Drug Court Standards
    Committee in its recently issued drug court program guide,\3 has also
    adopted similar suggestions, including suggesting that drug court
    programs collect and maintain data on drug use relapse and criminal
    recidivism of program participants after they leave the program.

    As previously noted in chapter 1, unlike DOJ and HHS, which have
    provided over 95 percent of the federal funding and/or support for
    drug court program operations, NADCP has no statutory or regulatory
    authority over drug court program operations.

    Recipients of grants awarded under the Violent Crime Act are also
    required to submit, in addition to financial reports, semiannual
    progress reports that describe activities during the reporting period
    and the status or accomplishment of objectives as set forth in the
    approved application for funding.  These progress reports are due
    twice a year and must be submitted within 30 days after the end of
    the reporting periods, which are June 30th and December 31st for the
    award period.  Recipients of HHS' CSAT grants are also generally
    required to submit quarterly progress reports in addition to required
    financial reports.

    Similarly, recipients of grants awarded by DOJ under the Byrne
    formula block grant, Comprehensive Communities, and Local Law
    Enforcement Block Grants programs are required to submit semiannual
    progress reports and periodic financial reports.  Also, recipients of
    SJI funds, which have been primarily used to study or pilot test
    innovative court initiatives, such as drug court programs, are
    generally required to submit quarterly progress reports in addition
    to required financial reports.  However, no specific requirements or
    suggestions exist under any of these programs for grant recipients to
    demonstrate the capability to ensure adequate program management via
    ongoing tracking and monitoring and program evaluation through the
    collection and maintenance of specific data on drug court program
    participants, as suggested for recipients of Violent Crime Act
    funding.  In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ noted that,
    although the Byrne formula block grants and Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grants administered by DOJ contain an evaluation component,
    they do not have the statutory authority to compel the states or
    local jurisdictions to collect specific program data or to evaluate
    any particular program(s).

    --------------------
    \2 Treatment Drug Courts:  Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With
    Legal Case Processing, U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services,
    1996.

    \3 Defining Drug Courts:  The Key Components, January 1997, supported
    by a grant awarded by DOJ's DCPO and issued in May 1997 by DOJ's
    DCPO.

       MOST DRUG COURT PROGRAMS
       REPORTED THEY MAINTAIN ALL BUT
       FOLLOW-UP DATA ON PARTICIPANTS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

    Over 90 percent of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed that were
    identified as operating as of December 31, 1996, reported that, with
    the exception of follow-up data on program participants, they
    maintained suggested program and participant data that enable them to
    manage and evaluate their programs.  Two-thirds of the drug court
    programs reported not maintaining follow-up drug relapse data, and
    nearly half reported not maintaining follow-up data on rearrest
    and/or conviction for a crime once participants leave the programs.
    Our survey did not determine the reasons why such data were not
    collected.  However, its results showed that no significant
    difference was associated with the source of funding (federal,
    state/local, private, etc.) received and the extent to which drug
    court programs were collecting and maintaining suggested follow-up
    data, including those federally funded under the Violent Crime Act,
    whose program guidance suggests that such data be collected and
    maintained.  Additionally, results from our survey showed small and
    statistically insignificant differences in the likelihood of
    postprogram follow-up data on drug use relapse and/or criminal
    recidivism being collected and maintained between older and newer
    drug court programs.

    About 94 percent of the drug court programs we surveyed reported
    having a data collection system or some other means in place that can
    be used to manage (monitor and track) their programs' operations.
    Regarding how drug court programs track and monitor program
    participants, about 19 percent of these drug court programs reported
    that they used a fully computerized data collection system, about 39
    percent a partially computerized data collection system, about 15
    percent some other noncomputerized means, and about 22 percent both
    computerized and noncomputerized means.  The remaining 6 percent
    reported that they did not have any means for monitoring and tracking
    data on program participants.\4 About 93 percent of these programs
    reported that their data collection systems and/or noncomputerized
    means had been used to manage their programs.

    About 70 percent of the programs operating as of December 31, 1996,
    reported having a data collection system in place that can be used to
    evaluate (i.e., assess/study) their programs' operations.  About 67
    percent of these programs reported that such systems had been used by
    internal program officials and/or external evaluators to evaluate
    their programs.

    Table 4.1 summarizes the programs' responses and shows the extent to
    which the data are computerized by type of data.

                                   Table 4.1

                     Percentage of Drug Court Programs that
                          Reported Maintaining Data on
                                  Participants

                                                                Percent of
                                              Percent of             these
                                                programs     programs with
                                             maintaining      computerized
    Data maintained                                 data              data
    ------------------------------------  --------------  ----------------
    Program participants
    Demographic information                           92                68
     (e.g., age, gender,
     race, income, and
     education)
    Criminal justice history                          94                70
     (i.e., arrest and/or
     conviction record)
    History of substance                              90                34
     abuse (i.e., controlled
     or other addictive
     substances)
    Level of use of                                   90                33
     controlled or other
     addictive substances at
     the point of entry into
     the program
    Substance abuse relapse                           94                44
    Rearrest and/or                                   90                60
     conviction for a
     nondrug crime
    Completion/noncompletion                          97                71
     of the program
    Follow-up data
    Substance abuse relapse                           33                31
    Rearrest and/or                                   53                65
     conviction for a
     nondrug crime
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December
    31, 1996.

    --------------------
    \4 Percentages exceed 100 percent due to rounding.

       FEASIBILITY ISSUES RELATING TO
       THE COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE
       OF FOLLOW-UP DATA
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

    Collaborative efforts among stakeholders in the drug court community
    have been undertaken to study the feasibility, cost, and obstacles
    associated with a recognized need by the drug court community
    stakeholders to collect and maintain follow-up data, as well as other
    data, on drug court program participants.  For example, in March
    1997, DOJ, through a cooperative agreement with JMI,\5 sponsored a
    focus group meeting involving various drug court stakeholders that
    focused on, among other things, the need for follow-up data to
    adequately monitor and evaluate the impact of drug court programs.
    During this collaborative effort--which involved, among others,
    federal grantors, drug court judges, program managers, treatment
    providers, researchers, and evaluators--stakeholders discussed, among
    other things, (1) how information (including follow-up relapse and
    recidivism data) could be obtained to answer key questions about drug
    court program impacts on participants' behavior and life
    circumstances, (2) circumstances in which it may be impossible or
    inappropriate to seek access to otherwise relevant data, (3)
    strategies for overcoming obstacles to obtaining relevant data, and
    (4) costs associated with collecting and maintaining such data.
    Also, during the May 1997, NADCP training conference in Los Angeles
    that was attended by about 1,500 drug court program judges,
    administrators, treatment providers, planners, and other stakeholders
    and interested parties, one of the nine daily sessions was devoted to
    data collection and program evaluation needs.  During these sessions,
    participants discussed, among other things, the type of information
    that is needed and legal and other issues associated with the
    collection and maintenance of program data, including follow-up data
    on program participants' criminal recidivism and drug use relapse.

    In addition, JMI, in doing a feasibility study to assist DOJ in its
    effort to sponsor multiple evaluations of four of the oldest
    operating drug court programs, concluded that it was feasible to do
    an evaluation focusing on offenders who entered these programs prior
    to 1997.  Among other things, JMI concluded that data on new arrests
    and/or convictions should be "relatively easy to obtain," but that
    other outcome variables, such as drug use relapse after a participant
    left the program, would be more difficult to obtain.  JMI did,
    however, suggest the following as possible sources of information on
    postprogram substance abuse by either graduates or persons terminated
    from a drug court program:

      -- searches of criminal history records that may indicate whether
         an individual was ever subsequently arrested for a charge
         involving possession of a controlled substance;

      -- searches of probation department files that may indicate whether
         an individual has had any subsequent presentence investigations
         or probation violation proceedings that show evidence of
         substance abuse;

      -- state databases that may contain information on persons admitted
         to treatment programs, although JMI cautions researchers that
         these databases are more likely to contain information on drug
         use for an active program participant and little or no
         postprogram data; and

      -- self-reported data obtained directly from former program
         participants.

    However, JMI cautions researchers that obtaining reliable data on
    substance abuse, other than data obtained through drug testing while
    an individual is a participant in the program, is likely to be
    labor-intensive and fraught with methodological problems that will
    have to be addressed carefully.  In addition, JMI notes that some
    criminal history data, which should be available in electronic form
    for both drug court participants and comparison group members from a
    combination of local, state, and the National Crime Information
    Center\6 databases, should be treated with caution.  JMI reported
    that these records were often incomplete (particularly with respect
    to conviction) and could be misleading in assessing a program
    participant because it is not uncommon for a defendant to be arrested
    long after admission to the drug court program on a warrant relating
    to an incident that took place prior to program participation.

    HHS' CSAT in its 1996 "Treatment Drug Courts," guidance highlights
    the importance of information sharing between the treatment program
    and the criminal justice system.  However, CSAT also warns that,
    although the flow of information from the substance abuse treatment
    program to the criminal justice system and to the
    researcher/evaluator is critical, those planning or operating
    programs and research studies must keep in mind that federal laws and
    regulations protect information about all persons receiving alcohol
    and drug abuse prevention and treatment services (Title 42 (Sec.
    290dd-2) of the U.S.  Code and 42 C.F.R.  Part 2).\7

    DOJ DCPO is also developing a data collection instrument to collect
    specific information from drug court programs receiving federal
    funding under the Violent Crime Act.  DOJ officials said that they
    intend to use the instrument to do semiannual progress reviews of
    these drug court programs.  A draft of the data collection instrument
    intended to collect data during the semiannual reviews included a
    request for information on several of the data elements noted in
    table 4.1, including information on criminal recidivism and drug
    relapse by program participants after they leave the program.

    As for comparative data, which we did not address in our survey of
    operating drug courts, HHS' CSAT in its 1996 guidance provides
    suggestions for doing comparative program evaluations.  One approach
    suggested by CSAT is to develop quasi-experimental designs that allow
    for scientifically rigorous examination of outcomes.  One type of
    quasi-experimental evaluation suggested by CSAT is a pre-post design,
    in which outcomes obtained following a participant's discharge from a
    drug court program are compared to those obtained prior to
    participation in the program.  For example, a defendant's frequency
    of drug use, frequency of arrests, or length of time between arrests
    can be compared before and after admission to the program.  CSAT
    cautions that a drawback to pre-post designs is that they do not take
    into account other factors that may contribute to the behavior
    changes they measure.

    Another type of quasi-experimental evaluation noted in CSAT's
    guidance includes studies of one or more comparison groups.  Using
    this design, results from an experimental and comparison group are
    contrasted.  The guidance suggests that comparison groups consist of
    similarly situated substance abusing defendants who do not
    participate in (or who do not complete) the drug court program.
    Suggested as useful comparison groups are defendants placed on a drug
    court program waiting list, defendants who are eligible for but elect
    not to participate in the drug court program, or defendants who are
    discharged from the program prior to completion.

    --------------------
    \5 JMI is a nonprofit organization established in 1993.  JMI provides
    technical assistance, education and training, research services, and
    dissemination of information for courts and other justice system
    agencies in the United States and abroad.

    \6 The National Crime Information Center is a centralized,
    computerized criminal justice information system maintained by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation consisting of a coordinated network
    of federal and state criminal justice information systems that
    provides users with access to records on various law enforcement
    matters such as wanted persons, stolen vehicles, and missing persons.

    \7 Federal regulations prohibit disclosure of information regarding
    patients who have applied for or received any alcohol or drug
    abuse-related services, including assessment, diagnosis, counseling,
    treatment, or referral for treatment, from a covered program.
    Federal regulations apply only to programs that receive federal
    assistance, including organizations that receive indirect forms of
    federal aid such as tax-exempt status, or state or local funding
    coming (in whole or in part), from the federal government.

    The federal confidentiality regulations permit programs to disclose
    patient identifying information to researchers, auditors, and
    evaluators without patient consent, providing that certain safeguards
    are in place.  Research that follows patients for any period of time
    after they leave treatment presents a special challenge.  Under
    federal regulations, no information that the researcher or evaluator
    gained from the substance abuse treatment program with the patient's
    consent or through the research, audit, and evaluation exceptions may
    be disclosed to anyone else.  Yet the researcher must locate the
    patient to collect follow-up data.  Federal regulations also prohibit
    making inquiries of persons associated with a patient being followed
    up that reveals the fact that he or she had been in treatment.  To
    avoid doing so, researchers and evaluators trying to locate a patient
    must do so without disclosing to others any information about the
    patient's connection to substance abuse treatment, or they must
    obtain the patient's consent to do so.

    Similarly, various state laws and regulations may also prohibit the
    disclosure of substance abuse client information that could violate
    their right to privacy.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

    Although the majority of the drug court programs we surveyed reported
    that they were maintaining most of the data that DOJ and NADCP
    suggested they maintain, nearly half of the drug court programs were
    not maintaining follow-up data on criminal recidivism and two-thirds
    were not maintaining data on drug use relapse.  The extent to which
    programs were collecting and maintaining the suggested follow-up data
    did not differ based on funding source, including those funded under
    the Violent Crime Act, whose program guidance suggests that such data
    be collected and maintained.  In addition, drug court stakeholders,
    led by DOJ, are beginning to recognize and study the feasibility,
    costs, and legal ramifications associated with collecting and
    maintaining information that is needed to adequately manage and
    evaluate drug court programs, including emphasizing the importance of
    having follow-up data on drug use relapse and criminal recidivism of
    program participants after they leave the program.  These efforts and
    the results of our survey seem to indicate that it would be feasible
    for a drug court program to collect criminal recidivism data.  They
    also indicate that, while collecting drug use relapse data may be
    difficult, it too is feasible in some cases.  As discussed in chapter
    5, without such data, it will be difficult for conclusions to be
    drawn in the future on the overall impact of drug court programs and
    their effect on program participants.

    EXISTING EVALUATIONS PROVIDE SOME
    LIMITED INFORMATION BUT DO NOT
    PERMIT FIRM CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
    DRUG COURT IMPACT
    ============================================================ Chapter 5

    The 20 evaluation studies that were available for us to review do not
    permit definitive conclusions to be reached concerning the overall
    impact of drug court programs or on the specific issues raised by
    Congress in the Violent Crime Act and our discussions with the Senate
    and House Judiciary Committees.  The available studies revealed
    diverse programs that varied in terms of their eligibility and
    completion requirements, and in the nature, duration, and intensity
    of the treatment provided.  Also, there were various differences and
    limitations in the objectives, scopes, and methodologies of these
    studies.

    Partly as a result of the program differences and the differences in
    study methods, the studies did not provide consistent information
    from which conclusions could be drawn on the overall impact of drug
    courts.  The authors of these evaluation studies were generally
    positive in their assessments of drug court operations and outcomes,
    but many of them portrayed their results as preliminary and tentative
    since the drug court programs evaluated were in many cases still in
    their infancy.  This chapter provides a general description of the
    evaluation studies we reviewed, a summary of their principal
    findings, and our recommendations for subsequent impact evaluations.
    Additional details of these evaluation studies are provided in
    appendix III.

       DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION
       STUDIES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1

    We collected and reviewed information from 20 published or
    unpublished evaluation studies written between 1991 and 1997.  These
    studies covered 16 drug court programs that began operations between
    1989 and 1996.\1 The studies we reviewed were primary studies we
    could obtain in time for this report that included, in addition to a
    description of drug court program operations, an evaluation component
    (i.e., some information on the outcome or efficacy of the drug court
    program in preventing relapse into drug use or criminal
    recidivism).\2

    --------------------
    \1 One program, in Broward County, FL, was covered by three
    independent evaluations; and two programs, in Dade County, FL, and
    Los Angeles County, CA, were covered by two evaluations.

    \2 In our search for these evaluation studies, we uncovered a variety
    of other published and unpublished documents that described program
    objectives and operations, provided judicial commentary on these
    programs and, in some cases, provided a summary description of a
    number of programs.  A bibliography of this fuller set of materials
    pertaining to drug courts is at the end of this report.

       VARIOUS FACTORS PREVENT DRAWING
       FIRM CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DRUG
       COURT IMPACT
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2

    Based on the legislative requirements of Title V of the 1994 Violent
    Crime Act and discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary
    Committees, we focused on determining what conclusions could be drawn
    from an evaluation synthesis of the 20 studies on the impact of drug
    courts, particularly in relation to the following specific issues:
    (1) criminal profile of drug court program participants compared to
    similar offenders processed through the traditional adjudication
    system, (2) completion rates of drug court program participants, (3)
    differences in characteristics between drug court program completers
    and noncompleters, (4) sanctions imposed on persons who failed to
    complete drug court programs compared to those similarly situated but
    processed through the traditional adjudication system, (5) drug use
    and criminal recidivism rates\3 of program and nonprogram
    participants, and (6) costs and benefits of drug courts to the
    criminal justice system.

    However, several factors prevent us from drawing firm conclusions
    about the impact of these drug court programs.  First, the programs
    the studies evaluated differed considerably in several areas.
    Second, the studies themselves also differed in terms of their
    objectives, scopes, and methodologies.  And third, the studies showed
    varying impacts of the drug court programs.

    --------------------
    \3 We use the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of
    committing new criminal offenses after having been arrested and/or
    convicted of a crime.  In the evaluation studies we reviewed, this
    was typically measured by rearrest.  Since only a small percentage of
    offenses result in rearrest, rearrest rates may underestimate the
    true recidivism rate.

          EVALUATION STUDIES REVIEWED
          REVEALED DIVERSE PROGRAMS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.1

    While all but three or four of the evaluation studies we reviewed
    involved drug court programs that were voluntary, and all of the
    programs included a treatment component, the programs described
    varied considerably in terms of eligibility requirements, percentages
    of eligible offenders who participated in and completed the programs,
    and the nature of the treatment that was provided program
    participants.  The intended length of the various programs ranged
    from 5 months to 2 years, though participants in some of the programs
    where completion was dependent on progress might remain in them for
    shorter or longer periods.  Although all of the programs appeared to
    involve judicial monitoring (e.g., appearances before the drug court
    judge) and drug testing, the frequency of appearances and testing
    appeared to vary substantially.  There was also considerable
    variation in the treatment components of these programs, which
    included various combinations of drug education, individual and group
    therapy, acupuncture, attendance at AA, Cocaine Anonymous (CA), or NA
    meetings, educational and vocational training, and additional support
    services.

          DIFFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS
          OF OBJECTIVES, SCOPES, AND
          METHODOLOGIES OF STUDIES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.2

    The evaluation studies we reviewed also varied considerably in their
    objectives, scopes, and methodologies.  All but one of the studies
    assessed the effectiveness of the programs by measuring the extent of
    drug use relapse and/or criminal recidivism among drug court program
    participants.  Ten of the 19 studies, however, investigated these
    outcomes while offenders were still in the program, while the other 9
    studies measured these outcomes after participants had completed, or
    been terminated from, the programs.\4 The studies that measured
    recidivism after program completion varied in terms of the length of
    follow-up, and in terms of how they measured recidivism; in some
    cases, studies described rearrests for any offense, in other cases,
    felony rearrests.  Some studies provided data on rearrests for
    specific offenses (e.g., drug-related and violent offenses).

    Twelve of the studies included information on comparison groups of
    drug offenders, and the nature of the comparison group varied across
    studies.\5 In some studies, drug court program participants were
    compared, over the same period, to persons who were eligible to
    participate but did not, while in other studies, participants were
    compared to offenders who had been arrested for drugs or other
    offenses at earlier points in time, before the drug court existed.
    In two studies, the equivalence of offenders in the treatment and
    comparison groups was enhanced by design or by random assignment to
    treatment and comparison groups.  Many of the studies that did not
    control for differences between groups by design also made no attempt
    to statistically control such differences.

    Only 6 of the 20 evaluation studies we reviewed involved a comparison
    group and an assessment of how participants and nonparticipant arrest
    rates compared after program completion.  The use of comparison
    groups is standard in evaluation research, as is the assessment of
    treatment effects after program completion; such approaches may
    become more common in drug court program evaluations as these
    programs get better established.

    To help ensure that differences in outcomes between drug court
    program participants and comparison groups are not due to selection
    effects, it is also essential that programs be evaluated in terms of
    what proportion of individuals eligible for the drug court programs
    actually participate in them, and how greatly they differ from
    individuals who choose not to participate in the programs.
    Differences in such characteristics must be controlled,
    statistically, in any analysis of differences in outcomes.  Many of
    the studies that we considered did not include statistical controls.

    Moreover, many of these studies only superficially considered the
    extent to which program participants complied with program
    requirements (e.g., attended treatment sessions, submitted required
    urine tests, and attended court hearings).  To determine why some
    programs work better than others, and why some program participants
    succeeded in avoiding relapse and rearrest while others failed, we
    would have had to have more information on the extent of treatment
    that different program participants received.

    Another factor that makes it difficult to reach definitive
    conclusions about the overall impact of drug court programs, or the
    six issues that have been raised about drug courts, is that it is
    unclear whether the 16 drug courts evaluated in the 20 studies we
    reviewed represent the entire population of drug courts now
    operating.  Moreover, some of the studies provided only limited
    information on the issues raised; on some issues, some of the studies
    provided no information.  Many studies, for example, said nothing
    about how offenders who failed to comply with program requirements or
    who were terminated from the programs were sanctioned.  Most of the
    studies said nothing about how program completers differed from
    noncompleters and about the costs and additional benefits of the drug
    court program.  Table 5.1 indicates which studies provided some
    information on the six questions or issues.

                                        Table 5.1

                          Matrix of Studies Showing Which Study
                          Provided Information on Congressional
                                          Issues

                                        Q3:
                                     Differenc
                                     e between
                                      program
                                     completer                Q5:
                  Q1:        Q2:       s and       Q4:     Drug use        Q6:
    Evaluatio  Criminal   Completio  noncomple  Sanctions     and     Program costs
    n study     profile    n rates     ters      imposed   rearrest    and benefits
    ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  --------------
    Maricopa       X          X                                X            X
     County,
     AZ
     (Deschen
     es et
     al.,
     1996)
    Los            X          X          X          X          X
     Angeles
     County,
     CA
     (Municip
     al
     Courts
     Planning
     and
     Research
     Unit,
     1996)
    Los            X                                X          X
     Angeles
     County,
     CA
     (Deschen
     es and
     Torres,
     1996)
    Oakland,       X          X                     X          X            X
     CA FIRST
     (Tauber,
     1995)
    Santa          X                                X          X
     Clara
     County,
     CA
     (Peters,
     1996)
    Ventura        X                     X          X          X            X
     County,
     CA
     (Oberg,
     1996)
    Denver,                                         X          X            X
     CO
     (Granfie
     ld and
     Eby,
     1997)
    D.C.           X          X                                X
     Superior
     Drug
     Court
     (Harrell
     and
     Cavanagh
     , 1996)
    Broward        X          X                                X
     County ,
     FL
     (Terry,
     1993;
     Terry,
     1996)
    Broward        X          X                     X          X            X
     County,
     FL
     (Commiss
     ion
     Auditor'
     s
     Office,
     1995)
    Broward        X          X          X                     X
     County,
     FL
     (McNeece
     and
     Daly,
     1993)
    Dade           X          X                     X          X
     County,
     FL
     (Goldkam
     p and
     Weiland,
     1993)
    Dade           X                                           X            X
     County,
     FL
     (Smith,
     Davis
     and
     Goretsky
     , 1991)
    Hillsboro      X          X                     X
     ugh
     County,
     FL
     (McNeece
     and
     Daly,
     1993)
    Baltimore      X                                           X
     , MD
     (Gottfre
     dson,
     Coblentz
     ,
     and
     Harmon,
     1996)
    Clark          X          X          X                     X
     County,
     NV
     (Choices
     Unlimite
     d Las
     Vegas,
     1996)
    Multnomah      X          X          X          X          X            X
     County
     S.T.O.P.
     , OR
     (Drug
     Court
     Clearing
     house,
     American
     Universi
     ty,
     1994)
    SODAT-         X          X          X                     X            X
     Delaware
     (Reed,
     1995)
    Travis         X          X         \a          X          X
     County,
     TX
     (Kelly,
     1996)
    Jackson        X          X                                X            X
     County,
     MO
     (Jameson
     and
     Peterson
     , 1995)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a A subsequent report (April 1996) did provide information on
    completion rates based on the ethnicity of program participants.

    Source:  GAO analysis of drug court evaluation studies.

    --------------------
    \4 None of the 11 evaluation studies that noted that they had
    received federal funding included postprogram information on drug use
    relapse, and 7 of the 11 did not include information on postprogram
    criminal recidivism.

    \5 Five of the 11 studies noting that they received federal funding
    did not include comparative data for similarly situated
    nonparticipants.

          EVALUATION STUDIES REVIEWED
          SHOW VARIED RESULTS
          REGARDING DRUG COURT IMPACT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.3

    Variation in the results reported in the different evaluation studies
    also makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the
    outcomes of these drug court programs.  Drug relapse, indicated by
    positive drug tests, was measured only during program participation,
    and different studies revealed relapse rates that ranged from 7
    percent to about 80 percent for drug court program participants.
    Criminal rearrest recidivism rates ranged from 0 percent to 58
    percent for drug court program participants.  While four of the six
    studies that collected information on rearrests after program
    completion and compared program participants or graduates with
    nonparticipants showed lower rates for the former group, the other
    two studies showed either no difference or small and probably
    insignificant differences.

    Although some of the studies were more sophisticated in their design
    and more rigorous in their methods, these studies did not appear any
    more or less likely than the others to indicate positive drug court
    outcomes.  None of the studies we reviewed indicated that drug court
    offenders had significantly higher relapse and recidivism rates than
    offenders not handled in drug court programs.  Those studies that
    provided information on the costs and benefits of these programs
    indicated that there were substantial cost savings and/or additional
    benefits (e.g., reducing the number of drug cases on traditional
    court dockets).  However, none of the programs have been thoroughly
    and systematically evaluated in terms of costs and benefits, and more
    information would be needed on this, as well as on the longer-term
    likelihoods of relapsing and recidivating, before it can be firmly
    established whether these courts have diminished costs or simply
    delayed them.

       GENERAL OUTCOMES REPORTED IN
       STUDIES RELATING TO SPECIFIC
       ISSUES RAISED ABOUT DRUG COURT
       PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3

    We are unable to provide definitive answers to the six specific
    issues raised about drug courts based on information from existing
    evaluation studies.  However, not all drug courts have been
    evaluated, and the 20 studies we reviewed did not in every case
    provide direct information that bears on the questions raised.  Those
    studies that did provide information varied in terms of how that
    information was provided, and how much detail they offered.  As such,
    the information provided in the following sections should be
    interpreted cautiously.

          CRIMINAL PROFILE OF DRUG
          COURT PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.1

    The evaluation studies varied in terms of how much detail they
    provided on the criminal profile of drug court program participants,
    and how similar or different participants were from drug offenders
    processed through the traditional adjudication system.  However, all
    but one of the evaluation studies provided information on the
    admissions criteria of the drug court programs they studied.  It
    appears that most of the programs covered in the studies excluded
    violent offenders, although one evaluation of the Dade County (FL)
    Drug Court program (Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993) revealed that the
    program had shown some flexibility in its admissions criteria,
    admitting some offenders who had prior arrests for serious crimes
    against persons.  Most of the programs excluded offenders involved in
    drug dealing or trafficking, though the Travis County (TX) Drug Court
    was reported to have excluded only individuals involved in
    "significant" drug dealing.  In at least one other program (Jackson
    County, MO, Drug Court), offenders involved in the sale of controlled
    substances under specified amounts were eligible to participate.

    While many of the programs initially targeted first-time offenders
    with no prior drug or felony arrests, two programs admitted offenders
    with either an extensive history of arrests (D.C.  Superior Drug
    Court) or a lengthy history of substance abuse (Santa Clara County
    (CA) Drug Treatment Court).  It also appears that some of the courts
    that were initially quite restrictive have modified their admission
    criteria to include offenders with prior offenses or offenses that
    originally resulted in exclusion from the drug court program.

    While these admission criteria make it likely that drug court
    participants are less serious offenders than other drug offenders who
    do not participate in drug court programs, only a few of the
    evaluation studies provided comparative information that directly
    bears on that question.  Usually, this information involved a
    comparison of characteristics of offenders eligible for the drug
    court program who chose to participate with offenders who chose not
    to participate, or who were on probation.  For example, the Baltimore
    City (MD) Drug Treatment Court evaluation reported that participants
    were historically more frequent offenders compared to other eligible
    probationers.  In addition, the Ventura County (CA) Drug Court study
    indicated that participants were similar, demographically and in
    terms of drug offenses committed, to offenders who were not accepted
    into the program.

    From the limited evidence provided, it appears that the
    characteristics of drug court program participants and differences
    between them and offenders processed in the traditional courts may
    vary from court to court.  Some types of offenders are ineligible for
    many of the drug court programs, and in the many programs that are
    voluntary, some of the eligible offenders decline to participate.
    While the authors of at least one of the evaluation studies noted
    that drug court participants may be a very selective group of
    offenders (and therefore quite different from nonparticipants), few
    of the studies provided a clear indication of what percentage of
    eligible offenders chose to participate.  One study indicated that
    most of the eligible offenders who were represented by private
    attorneys opted not to participate in the drug court program.

          DRUG COURT PROGRAM
          COMPLETION RATES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.2

    Many of the drug court programs evaluated were still in their first
    or second year of operation, and many of the offenders who had been
    admitted to the drug court programs were still active in them.  As
    such, it is difficult to assess what the completion rate of these
    programs will eventually be, based on these existing evaluation
    studies.  We do provide information derived from our survey on the
    completion rates for 56 of the 62 drug court programs identified as
    operating, as of December 31, 1996, for more than 18 months, in
    chapter 3.

    Some of the evaluation studies we reviewed provided information on
    completion rates for participants who had entered drug court programs
    a year or more before the study was done, and enough time had lapsed
    for a reasonably accurate completion rate to be calculated.  For
    example, one of the Broward County (FL) Drug Court studies reported a
    completion rate of 39 percent for the 787 persons who entered the
    program in its first year, and another of the Broward County (FL)
    studies provided data which, when adjustments are made for persons
    still active in treatment, yields a completion rate of 35 percent
    over 3 years.  The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T) Drug Court Program study
    indicated that 54 percent of a sample of drug court program
    participants admitted during 1991 had successfully completed it.

    Based on information available in existing studies, we were able to
    estimate the completion rates for eight of the remaining programs
    that provided data on cohorts of participants, among whom many were
    still active.  We calculated a completion rate by deleting the
    currently active participants and dividing the number who
    successfully completed the program by the number who were admitted to
    it (and were not still enrolled).  This is consistent with the method
    we use in chapter 3 to calculate completion rates for drug court
    programs identified as operating as of December 31, 1996, for more
    than 18 months.  For these programs, completion rates varied from
    less than 1 percent to more than 70 percent, and averaged about 43
    percent.  This calculation of the average may underestimate eventual
    completion rates for the newest programs in which most persons
    admitted were still enrolled.  Completion rates are likely to vary
    substantially across programs because some programs appeared to be
    more tolerant of relapses, rearrests, and program noncompliance than
    others.  It is also possible that completion rates may change over
    time if, for example, these programs were to modify their eligibility
    criteria, as some have appeared to do after their first year or two
    of operation.

          DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROGRAM
          COMPLETERS AND NONCOMPLETERS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.3

    Because of the newness of many of these programs and the substantial
    numbers of offenders recently admitted and still active in them, it
    is difficult to assess what distinguishes program completers from
    noncompleters.  In some of the programs, many of the noncompleters
    opted out of the program after beginning it, while in others many of
    the noncompleters were persons who failed to comply with program
    requirements (e.g., attending treatment sessions), repeatedly
    relapsed (e.g., failed drug tests), or were rearrested during their
    participation in the program.

    Only a few of the evaluation studies provided information on
    differences between offenders who completed the programs and those
    who did not.  The Ventura County (CA) Drug Court Program reported
    that males and Hispanics were less likely to complete the program.
    One of the Broward County (FL) Drug Court studies suggested that
    African-Americans were less likely than others to complete treatment,
    which was required for program completion.  A similar finding was
    reported in the SODAT-Delaware, Inc., Drug Court Program study, which
    also indicated that blacks and whites with less severe drug problems
    were more likely to complete treatment and to graduate, and that
    program completion was slightly higher for men and for participants
    who were older, better educated, and employed.  The Clark County (NV)
    Drug Court program study generally indicated no differences in
    termination rates between ethnic groups and between male and female
    participants.  This same study, however, indicated that termination
    rates were higher for participants entering the program under the
    influence or in possession of a controlled substance, particularly
    cocaine and amphetamines, and that participants 40 years old and over
    had higher completion rates.  One of the Los Angeles County (CA) Drug
    Court studies also indicated that older participants were more likely
    to complete the program and that married participants had higher
    completion rates as well.  The same effects of age and marital status
    were reported in the Multnomah County (OR) S.T.O.P.  Program, which
    also suggested that program completers were more likely to be
    residentially stable, to have a longer history of drug use, and to
    more consistently attend treatment sessions.  Some of these
    differences are small and are likely to be statistically
    insignificant.  Moreover, multivariable analysis would have to be
    undertaken to discern whether some of these variables had no affect
    when other variables were controlled.

          PROGRAM SANCTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.4

    Many of the evaluation studies we reviewed said little or nothing
    about what happens to program participants who fail to comply with
    program requirements and participants who were terminated from the
    drug court programs.  From the information that was provided in some
    of the studies, it appeared that how drug court programs responded to
    relapse and rearrest varied considerably across the programs, as did
    sanctions for program noncompliance (e.g., failing to show for tests
    or treatment sessions).

    The Broward County (FL) evaluation study by McNeece and Daly
    indicated that most participants who were rearrested or violated
    probation were not terminated but were allowed to remain in the
    program unless a nondrug offense was committed, such as assault.  The
    evaluation study of this same program by the Commission Auditor's
    Office, however, stated that arrests for driving while under the
    influence of alcohol or drugs or cannabis possession, or for any
    felony during participation, resulted in immediate termination.  This
    latter study also indicated that limits had been established with
    respect to the number of positive drug tests during participation
    (seven) and the number of missed treatment sessions or court
    appearances (three).  The Santa Clara County (CA) study also
    indicated that a participant could be terminated for positive drug
    tests, though it did not indicate how frequently this occurred.

    The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T.) Drug Court study indicated that failure
    to appear at scheduled hearings could be sanctioned by incarceration
    for at least 1 week, after which the participant would be reinstated.
    Only two reinstatements were permitted before participants were to be
    terminated and had to undergo criminal proceedings.  The Denver (CO)
    Court study noted, without providing specific information, that a
    "carrot and stick" approach is used "whereby the court uses graduated
    sanctions in response to violations and grants rewards for program
    compliance." The Los Angeles County (CA) Drug Courts study by the
    Planning and Research Unit also alluded to the use of "progressively
    severe sanctions," which could include incarceration, and noted that
    termination would result in reinstatement of the original criminal
    charges and prosecution.  The evaluation of this same drug court
    program by Deschenes and Torres indicated that in all four drug
    courts in Los Angeles County, offender relapse did not necessarily
    lead to dismissal from the program.

    The Baltimore City (MD) Drug Treatment Court study also noted that
    incarceration was used to sanction program noncompliance, as did the
    Travis County (TX) Drug Diversion Court and Maricopa County (AZ)
    evaluations.  The Ventura County (CA) Drug Court study indicated that
    new crime charges, three positive drug test samples, and other acts
    of noncompliance could result in termination and offenders being
    returned to serve their sentences.  The Dade County (FL) Drug Court
    study by Goldkamp and Weiland indicated that "motivational jail"
    terms of up to 2 weeks were sometimes used to sanction offenders for
    program noncompliance.

          RELAPSE AND RECIDIVISM RATES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.5

    Ideally, responding to issues raised by Congress and others and
    addressing the efficacy of drug court programs would be more
    effectively determined by following up on participants and
    nonparticipants (i.e., eligible offenders who chose not to
    participate) for some period after they leave the program to see if
    they committed new crimes or relapsed into drug use.  Overall, the
    evaluation studies we reviewed showed some positive results but did
    not firmly establish whether drug court programs were successful in
    reducing drug relapse and offender recidivism.  Many of the studies
    involved very short follow-up periods.  Some calculated relapse
    and/or recidivism rates only for program participants, and only for
    the period during which they were participating in the program.
    Others compared rates of recidivism or relapse for program
    participants and program dropouts or with offenders whose arrests
    occurred prior to the inception of the program.

    Drug relapse was less frequently measured in these evaluation studies
    than recidivism or rearrests and was only measured (by positive drug
    tests) during the period of program participation.  Relapse rates
    were sometimes calculated by taking the percentage of offenders
    tested who had one or more positive drug tests, and at other times by
    taking, for each group tested, the percentages of positive tests out
    of all tests taken or out of all tests scheduled.  In one case, the
    percentage of offenders in each group testing positive in the month
    before sentencing was calculated.  There was substantial variation
    across the studies that provided information on drug tests; some
    showed that fewer than 10 percent of drug tests were positive, or
    that less than 10 percent of participants tested positive, while
    others showed that as many as 80 percent of the offenders tested had
    positive tests.

    Recidivism rates were typically calculated by taking the percentage
    of offenders rearrested in a particular (and widely varying) period,
    but in one or two cases by taking the mean number of arrests or bench
    warrants per offender.  Table 5.2 classifies each study according to
    whether it measured recidivism only for program participants or for
    participants and a comparison group of nonparticipants, and whether
    recidivism was measured only during program participation or after.

                                        Table 5.2

                         Evaluation Studies Classified According
                           to Whether They Included Comparison
                         Groups and When They Measured Recidivism

                            Comparison group?              Recidivism measured
                       ----------------------------  -------------------------------
    Evaluation                                       During
    study              Yes            No             program        After completion
    -------------  --  -------------  -------------  -------------  ----------------
    Los Angeles                       x                             x
    County, CA
    (Municipal
    Courts
    Planning and
    Research
    Unit, 1996)

    Los Angeles                       x              x
    County, CA
    (Deschenes
    and Torres,
    1996)

    Broward                           x              x
    County, FL
    (McNeece and
    Daly, 1993)

    Broward                           x                             x
    County, FL
    (Commission
    Auditors
    Office, 1995)

    Clark County,                     x                             x
    NV
    (Choices
    Unlimited Las
    Vegas, 1996)

    Multnomah                         x              x
    County
    S.T.O.P.,
    OR,
    Drug Court
    Clearinghouse
    ,
    American
    University,
    1994)

    SODAT-                            x              x
    Delaware
    (Reed,1995)

    Maricopa           x                                            x
    County, AZ
    (Deschenes et
    al., 1996)

    Oakland, CA,       x                                            x
    F.I.R.S.T.
    (Tauber,
    1995)

    Santa Clara        x                             x
    County, CA
    (Peters,
    1996)

    Ventura            x                             x
    County, CA
    (Oberg, 1996)

    Denver, CO         x                             x
    (Granfield
    and Eby,
    1997)

    D.C. Superior      x                             x
    Drug Court
    (Harrell and
    Cavanagh,
    1996)

    Broward            x                                            x
    County, FL
    (Terry, 1993;
    Terry, 1996)

    Dade County,       x                             x
    FL
    (Smith,
    Davis, and
    Goretsky,
    1991)

    Dade County,       x                                            x
    FL
    (Goldkamp and
    Weiland,
    1993)

    Baltimore,         x                                            x
    MD
    (Gottfredson,
    Coblentz, and
    Harmon, 1996)

    Jackson            x                             x
    County, MO
    (Jameson and
    Peterson,
    1995)

    Travis             x                                            x
    County, TX
    (Kelly, 1996)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  The Hillsborough County (FL) Court study did not measure
    recidivism.  Program effectiveness was measured by asking
    participants about the program.  All participants reported that they
    were satisfied, and 96 percent found the program to be effective.

    Source:  GAO analysis of drug court program evaluation studies.

    Four of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing
    outcomes during the program for participants, without providing
    information on a comparison group of nonparticipants.  The Los
    Angeles County (CA) study by Deschenes and Torres found that a sample
    of graduates and current participants gave high ratings to the
    program, and self-reported lower rates of drug use and criminal
    behavior after entering the program than before.  The Broward County
    (FL) evaluation study by McNeece and Daly indicated that of the
    roughly 1,000 offenders who entered that program in 1992 (half of
    whom were still active), 11 percent had been rearrested or
    incarcerated or had bench warrants issued for their arrest, and that
    52 (16 percent) of the 323 offenders tested for drugs had tested
    positive on one or more occasions.  The other two studies, the
    SODAT-Delaware Program and the Multnomah County (OR) Program,
    compared program participants or graduates with participants who had
    been terminated and found that the participants or graduates had
    fewer positive drug tests and/or rearrests or bench warrants issued
    during their participation in the program than those terminated.

    Three of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing
    outcomes after the program for participants, without providing
    information on a comparison group of nonparticipants.  The Broward
    County (FL) study by the Commission Auditor's Office, which looked at
    outcomes both during and after program completion, found that, for a
    small sample of program graduates, positive drug tests declined with
    time in treatment, and that, while 20 percent had been rearrested
    while participating in the program, only 10 percent had been arrested
    after graduating from the program.  The Clark County (NV) study
    revealed that only 6 percent of program graduates had been arrested
    on new charges since their release, though the time at risk of
    rearrest for these graduates was not clear.  The Los Angeles County
    (CA) study by the Municipal Courts Planning and Research Unit found
    that 11 percent of the program graduates had been arrested after
    completing the program.  Here too, it was not clear how long they
    were at risk of rearrest.

    Six of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing
    outcomes during the program for participants and a comparison group
    of nonparticipants.  Five of the six studies measured rearrests; two
    of these studies compared rearrests for participants to rearrests for
    offenders eligible to participate who did not (the Santa Clara County
    and Ventura County, CA, studies), and three of them made comparisons
    to groups of offenders from earlier periods the Denver (CO) Drug
    Court study, the Jackson County (MO) study, and the Dade County (FL)
    study by Smith, et al.).  Four of these five studies found lower
    rearrest rates among participants, while one study found no
    significant differences.  One of these five studies (the Santa Clara
    County (CA) study) also reported fewer positive drug tests among the
    participants.  At the time of our review, the sixth study, involving
    the D.C.  Superior Court, did not measure rearrests.  However, it
    found that participants randomly assigned to the drug court treatment
    program were less likely to test positive for drugs than those in the
    standard docket during the month before sentencing but more likely to
    test positive than a third group of offenders randomly assigned to a
    graduated sanctions docket.

    The remaining six studies all employed comparison groups and
    considered rearrests after program completion.  Four of these studies
    found lower rearrest rates for program participants or graduates than
    for the comparison groups of nonparticipants, after 6 months
    (Baltimore City (MD)), 12 months (Travis County (TX)), 18 months (the
    Dade County (FL) report by Goldkamp and Weiland), and 3 years (the
    Oakland (CA) F.I.R.S.T.  study).  Two of them, however, found either
    no difference or small and probably insignificant differences, in one
    case after 12 months (Maricopa County (AZ)), and in the other case
    after 25 to 37 months (the Broward County (FL) report by Terry).

          PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.6

    None of these studies included a systematic cost/benefit analysis.
    However, several of them indicated that the drug court programs
    accrued some savings and enabled traditional courts to better handle
    violent and other serious criminal offenders.  Whether there are
    long-term savings will depend on how many of the drug court
    participants end up on probation or in prison after their
    participation.

    One of the Broward County (FL) Drug Court studies reported that the
    average treatment cost to produce program graduates ranged from
    $3,215 to $5,834 and compared favorably to the cost of a typical
    6-month jail sentence ($8,400).  The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T.) Drug
    Court study reported that, largely because of the fewer days in
    custody spent by program participants, a conservative estimate of the
    savings to the county over the 3-year study period would be $3.0
    million.  The Denver (CO) Drug Court study estimated a savings of
    between $1.8 and $2.5 million per year due to decreased presentence
    confinement.  The SODAT-Delaware Drug Court study reported that the
    cost of treating 219 drug offenders was equivalent to keeping 8
    offenders in prison for 1 year.  The Ventura County (CA) Drug Court
    Program, Multnomah County (OR) S.T.O.P.  Program, and Jackson County
    (MO) Drug Court Program studies also suggested there had been cost
    savings due to reduced incarceration costs.  The only study that
    provided information on costs and did not indicate that savings
    resulted from the program was the Maricopa County (AZ) First Time
    Drug Offender Program study, which concluded that the cost of program
    participation was roughly comparable to the cost of standard
    probation.

       DOJ AND DRUG COURT COMMUNITY
       EFFORTS MAY HELP TO PROVIDE
       SOME DEFINITIVE ANSWERS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:4

    DOJ and others in the drug court community have efforts ongoing that
    are expected to address some of the factors associated with existing
    studies that did not permit us to draw firm conclusions about the
    impact of drug courts.

    Under Section 2209, Part V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act, the
    Attorney General may make arrangements for evaluations of drug court
    programs that receive grant support from DOJ's DCPO.  In carrying out
    this authority, DOJ's NIJ, in April 1997, issued a solicitation to
    fund two to four evaluations of four of the oldest existing drug
    court programs.  These evaluations of specific drug court programs
    are intended to incorporate many of the elements that we have found
    lacking in a number of the studies we reviewed, including data on
    comparison groups of nonparticipants; follow-up data; survey data to
    supplement rearrest records; and data on program implementation,
    compliance, completion, and costs; and study methods that are to
    control statistically for differences between program participants
    and offenders in the comparison groups in assessing program outcomes.

    These evaluations of specific drug court programs are intended to
    take place in two phases, with each phase lasting approximately 1
    year.  Topics to be discussed under phase I include criminal
    recidivism, descriptive, historical, and attitudinal data.  During
    phase I, researchers are also expected to develop detailed design
    plans for answering questions in phase II.  Topics to be discussed
    under phase II include participant retention in treatment, changes in
    participants' life circumstances and productivity, and cost/benefit
    analysis.  DOJ also plans for the scope of these evaluations to
    include follow-up information on drug-use relapse of program
    participants after completion or termination from the program.

    In addition to the NIJ studies, as previously mentioned in chapter 4,
    DOJ's DCPO is developing an instrument to collect information from
    Violent Crime Act funded drug court programs to help DOJ monitor
    their progress in various areas, including the collection of
    follow-up and other data on program participants.  Furthermore, drug
    court community stakeholders have recognized the need for, and are
    taking some action to encourage the collection of, follow-up data for
    monitoring and doing future impact evaluations of drug courts.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5

    A substantial number of evaluation studies of drug court programs
    have been done.  However, due to the newness of the programs at the
    time of the evaluations; the diversity in the programs; and the
    differences and limitations in the objectives, scopes, and
    methodologies of these studies, we cannot draw any firm conclusions
    from our evaluation synthesis on the overall impact/effectiveness of
    drug courts.  For the same reasons, we cannot reach firm conclusions
    about specific aspects of drug court programs or specific questions
    about program participants.  The studies we reviewed varied in terms
    of the amount of information they provided and showed varied results
    about the impact of drug court programs in general, as well as with
    regard to the specific issues raised by Congress about program
    operations and participants.  Some studies showed positive effects of
    the drug court programs during the period offenders participated in
    them, while others showed no effects, or effects that were mixed, and
    difficult to interpret.  Similarly, some studies showed positive
    effects for offenders after completing the programs, while others
    showed no effects, or small and insignificant effects.  Drug relapse
    was less frequently evaluated in these studies than rearrests, and
    estimates of relapse rates varied substantially.  None of the
    studies, however, showed any adverse effect from participation in the
    drug treatment program.

    As we noted above, some variation in the results of these studies
    might be due to the differences in how the studies were conducted.
    It is also possible, however, that variation in results across
    different drug court programs may result from the fact that drug
    court programs target different populations, operate differently, and
    some are more successful in producing positive outcomes than others.
    We believe that, until follow-up data on relapse and criminal
    recidivism for participants and nonparticipants are collected across
    a broad range of programs, it will not be possible to respond to
    issues raised by Congress and others or to reach firm conclusions
    about whether drug court programs work, or whether some work better
    than others.  With such data, and additional data on program
    operations and treatment characteristics, researchers would be in a
    better position to rigorously analyze how drug court program outcomes
    are affected by participant and program characteristics.

    As discussed in chapter 4, although most drug court programs reported
    that they had the capability to demonstrate adequate program
    management through ongoing monitoring and tracking of program
    operations and that they were maintaining most of the data DOJ, CSAT,
    and the NADCP Drug Court Standards Committee suggested they maintain,
    nearly half of the programs were not maintaining follow-up data on
    rearrests, and about two-thirds were not maintaining data on relapse.
    In addition, many of the evaluation studies we reviewed did not
    include follow-up information on rearrest and none on relapse after
    participants left the program, including some that were federally
    funded.  Many of them also lacked comparative data on similar
    offenders who did not participate in the program.  Without such data,
    it will be difficult to draw conclusions in the future on the overall
    impact of drug court programs and their effect on program
    participants.

    We recognize the difficulties inherent in collecting follow-up data
    on criminal recidivism and particularly drug relapse, as well as
    comparable data on nonparticipants.  Drug court program participants,
    and comparable nonparticipants, may move to other jurisdictions
    following the completion of the program, or after completing their
    sentence, and may be difficult to follow.  Neither group can be
    expected to volunteer for drug tests to determine relapse after they
    have left the court's purview, and arrests for new drug offenses are
    fallible measures of drug relapse (since not all drug offenses or
    criminal offenses generally result in arrests), just as arrests are
    fallible indicators of criminal recidivism in general.  Ultimately,
    drug court programs may have to be quite innovative in their
    strategies for collecting such data and may need to resort to
    sampling and surveying participants and nonparticipants.  The more
    that different sources of data are brought to bear on the question of
    drug court efficacy, the more likely firm conclusions can be made
    about those questions.

    We also recognize that the need for and benefits of having data must
    be balanced against the cost of collecting and maintaining it, as
    well as against any logistical and legal implications, including
    existing statutory limitations.  Nevertheless, if meaningful impact
    evaluations are to be done in the future on the growing number of
    drug courts, more of them must collect and maintain data on factors
    affecting program operations and outcomes, including data on
    participants after they leave the program.  Further, whether drug
    court programs are effective would be demonstrated more definitively
    by following up on participants and nonparticipants (i.e., eligible
    offenders who chose not to participate) for some period after they
    leave the program to see if they committed new crimes or relapsed
    into drug use.

    In addition to its planned evaluations of selected drug court
    programs, DOJ, in conjunction with various stakeholders in the drug
    court community as noted in chapter 4, is undertaking efforts that
    are expected to address some of the factors associated with existing
    studies that did not enable us to draw firm conclusions.  However,
    the outcomes of these efforts and any future evaluations of drug
    court programs may be hindered by the lack of available follow-up
    data.  Drug court programs currently are not required to collect such
    data, and studies of drug court programs generally are not required
    to assess participants' postprogram recidivism or drug relapse or
    compare participants with similar nonparticipants.  Moreover, certain
    statutory restrictions may limit DOJ's authority to require drug
    court programs receiving funding from formula or block grants to
    collect critical follow-up data.

       RECOMMENDATIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:6

    To help ensure more effective management and evaluation of drug court
    programs, we recommend that the Attorney General and the Secretary of
    HHS

      -- require drug court programs funded by discretionary grants
         administered by DOJ and HHS to collect and maintain follow-up
         data on program participants' criminal recidivism and, to the
         extent feasible, follow-up data on drug use relapse; and

      -- require drug court programs funded by formula or block grants
         administered by DOJ and HHS, to the extent permitted by law, to
         collect and maintain follow-up data on program participants'
         criminal recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data
         on drug use relapse.  Where no statutory authority exists to
         impose such requirements, we recommend that DOJ and HHS include
         in their respective grant guidelines language to suggest that
         drug court programs funded by these sources similarly collect
         and maintain such data.

    To better ensure that conclusions about the impact of drug court
    programs on participants' criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse
    can be drawn, we recommend that the Attorney General, the Secretary
    of HHS, and the Executive Director of SJI require that the scope of
    future impact evaluations of drug court programs funded by their
    respective agencies include an assessment of program participants'
    postprogram criminal recidivism and drug use relapse and, whenever
    feasible, compare drug court participants with similar
    nonparticipants.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:7

    Agencies and other organizations commenting on a draft of our report
    generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
    relating to the collection and maintenance of follow-up data on
    program participants and impact evaluations of these programs.
    However, DOJ, SJI, and NADCP raised some concerns with our
    recommendations.

    DOJ expressed concerns about its ability to impose mandatory
    requirements on congressionally authorized entitlement
    grants--formula or block grant programs.  DOJ said that drug courts
    are among many programs that can be funded under the BJA Byrne
    formula block grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants programs.
    Although BJA requires an evaluation component for all programs funded
    through formula grants and supports these efforts through an array of
    policies and practices, BJA does not have statutory authority to
    compel states to collect specific program data or to evaluate any
    particular program or programs.

    Given DOJ's concerns about its authority, we have modified our
    recommendations for data collection and maintenance to accommodate
    any statutory limitations that may be associated with formula and
    block grant programs.  In response to DOJ's comment relating to drug
    court program evaluations, we modified our recommendation to make it
    clear that we are recommending that DOJ require the scope of any
    evaluations of drug court programs funded by grants administered by
    DOJ to include an assessment of program participants' postprogram
    drug relapse and criminal recidivism and not that DOJ require drug
    court programs or states to evaluate such outcomes.

    Similarly, SJI expressed concerns about its ability to impose
    requirements on programs for which it only provides short-term
    funding, commenting that there are practical limitations associated
    with how much of the recommended information can be collected under
    any SJI grant.  SJI officials noted that they have sponsored two
    ongoing drug court program evaluations that are attempting to collect
    short-term recidivism data, but commented that obtaining a more
    thorough and meaningful assessment of recidivism and relapse data
    would require a much longer grant period and, accordingly, a much
    larger grant than SJI resources permit.

    We acknowledge SJI's efforts to collect short-term recidivism data.
    However, adequately designed evaluation studies should enable longer
    term recidivism and drug use relapse data to be obtained by assessing
    postprogram outcomes of drug court participants who have already
    completed a drug court program(s).  Such an approach should better
    enable evaluators receiving short-term funding to gather more
    long-term research data without having to monitor or follow the
    progress of currently enrolled program participants and then
    subsequently assessing the outcome of the participants 12 to 24
    months after completing the program.

    SJI also notes that once a grant-supported project ends, SJI can
    encourage the jurisdiction operating the drug court to maintain the
    requisite data, but it no longer has the authority to require it.  We
    are not recommending that SJI require any drug court program and/or
    jurisdiction funded by an SJI grant to collect or maintain follow-up
    data on drug court program participants.  Rather, we recommend that
    SJI require that the scope of any future impact evaluations of drug
    court programs that are funded by SJI grants include postprogram data
    on criminal recidivism and drug use relapse, which we deem to be
    critical elements to providing Congress and other interested parties
    with answers to questions relating to drug court program impact and
    effectiveness.

    DOJ and NADCP also indicated that one of the difficulties associated
    with our recommendation that evaluations of drug court programs
    include follow-up data and comparison groups is the lack of ongoing
    technical assistance and sufficient resources available to drug court
    programs to enable them to develop the capacity for data collection
    and program evaluation.  NADCP stated that drug court programs and
    courts in general often lack the resources, funding, and expertise to
    both collect and evaluate program data and pointed out that it will
    be necessary either to provide funding for professionally implemented
    evaluations or to assist local jurisdictions in developing the
    capabilities to do them.  DOJ noted that ongoing technical assistance
    and guidance in the area of data collection and evaluation are
    greatly needed in the drug court community and that DOJ must address
    these technical assistance needs if drug court programs are to be
    expected to develop the capacity for data collection and to produce
    effective impact evaluations.  DOJ reiterated that it has taken a
    number of steps to develop the capacity for data collection and
    evaluation among its drug court grantees, and DOJ stated that it will
    work with Congress to increase its funding for technical assistance.

    Although we identified various sources of technical assistance
    available to the drug court community and guidelines suggesting that
    certain data on program participants be collected, maintained, and
    made available for future impact evaluations, we did not
    systematically review and cannot comment on the sufficiency and
    adequacy of technical assistance and related resources that are
    currently being provided to drug court programs or research
    evaluators planning to do future impact studies.

    NADCP and the Drug Court Clearinghouse also commented that, while it
    may be too early to reach firm conclusions, results from our survey
    and evaluation synthesis in their views permit a more positive
    conclusion about drug court programs than we arrive at in our report.
    NADCP stated that the data from our survey, from the evaluation
    studies we reviewed, and from more recent unpublished preliminary
    findings involving the Maricopa County (AZ) and D.C.  Superior Court
    drug court programs, were consistent with a preliminary finding that
    drug court programs are having a positive impact.  As evidence of
    this, NADCP offered information on (1) the numbers of studies,
    overall and among those that employed comparison groups, that showed
    positive results; (2) the numbers of studies that reported cost
    savings; and (3) the retention and completion rates derived from our
    survey, which NADCP asserts favorably compare with other programs in
    the treatment community.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse pointed out
    that the average retention rate for drug court program participants,
    resulting from our survey of 134 operating programs, is significantly
    higher than program retention rates noted for nondrug court program
    participants and that the average completion rate, also coming from
    our survey of these programs, is more than twice that encountered in
    traditional treatment programs.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse also
    noted that it is important to draw on additional evaluative measures
    to assess societal benefits drug court programs are achieving in
    addition to reductions in recidivism and drug usage.  As evidence,
    the Drug Court Clearinghouse stated that over 400 drug-free babies
    have been reportedly born to drug court program participants; that
    families have been reunified, including situations in which former
    drug-using parents have regained custody of their children; and that
    drug court program graduates are required to have at least a high
    school diploma or general equivalency degree certificate.

    We note in this report that many of the studies we reviewed provide
    positive evidence of the merits of drug court programs.  We do not
    believe, however, that all of these studies are equally sophisticated
    in their design and methods, or that the results of these studies can
    be simply summed to provide firm conclusions.  Many of these studies
    are lacking in comparison groups, and those that include them are
    often lacking in necessary statistical controls between groups
    compared, or lacking follow-up data.  Therefore, we continue to
    believe that the shortcomings associated with many of the evaluations
    of drug court programs that have been done provide good reasons for
    withholding final judgment on the overall effectiveness of drug court
    programs and aspects of the program until more and better data are
    collected and additional evaluation studies are completed.

    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 Clearinghouse.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
    SURVEY OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    OUTCOMES REPORTED IN AND GAO'S
    ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE
    EVALUATIONS OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS
    ========================================================= Appendix III

       MARICOPA COUNTY FIRST TIME DRUG
       OFFENDER PROGRAM (DESCHENES ET
       AL., 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.1

    1992.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.2

    The program was limited to first-time offenders convicted of drug
    possession or use (not selling) and sentenced to 3 years of
    probation.  Participants were randomly assigned to one of four
    groups:  (1) the drug court program, which involved testing,
    treatment, and sanctions; (2) standard probation with no drug
    testing; (3) standard probation with random monthly drug tests; and
    (4) standard probation with testing scheduled biweekly.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.3

    Participation was determined by random assignment.  Of the 176
    persons assigned to the drug court program, only 19 (11 percent)
    never received the drug court program.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.4

    Six to 12 months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.5

    The drug treatment court program costs were similar to the costs of
    standard probation, which were estimated at $2,795 per offender per
    year; the original first-time drug offender drug court cost was
    $2,541 per offender per year, but under a new contract with Maricopa
    County Adult Probation, it increased to $2,926 per offender per year.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.6

    The drug court program was designed to include status hearings before
    the drug court judge every 2 months, but the judge could increase or
    decrease the frequency of hearings at each hearing.  It was also
    designed to include at least one drug test per month, though
    anecdotal evidence suggests that tests were not done on a scheduled
    basis, and averaged one test every 2 months.  The treatment program
    consisted of three phases (orientation, stabilization, and
    transition) and included drug education, social skills training,
    relapse prevention, and attendance at 12-step meetings and process
    group meetings.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.7

    At the end of 12 months, 18 percent were still active in the program;
    among those not still active, 49 percent had graduated and were
    discharged from the program.  The primary reasons for failing to
    complete the program were technical violations, new arrests, bench
    warrants, and absconding.  Some of the offenders with technical
    violations or arrests may have returned to the program later, as
    technical violations and arrests do not necessarily mean they were
    terminated from the program.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.8

    Our 1995 report\1 described an earlier version of this evaluation,
    which at that time involved a 6-month follow-up and showed no
    significant differences across groups in rearrest rates and technical
    violations.  This evaluation shows similar differences (or lack of
    differences) after 12 months.  Thirty-one percent of the drug court
    program group had been rearrested versus 30 percent to 37 percent in
    the standard probation groups.  Thirty-nine percent of the drug court
    program group were involved in technical violations versus 40 percent
    to 55 percent in the standard probation groups.  While the likelihood
    of at least one technical violation did not differ across groups, the
    average number of technical violations for the drug court group was
    lower than for the other three groups.  Roughly half of the offenders
    in each group involving drug tests tested positive at least once over
    the 12-month period.

    --------------------
    \1 GGD-95-159BR.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.0.9

    The design here, involving random assignment to groups that varied in
    terms of testing and treatment, is quite strong.  These results,
    especially those involving recidivism, fail to establish strong
    effects of testing and treatment.  Part of the reason for this may be
    due to the fact that the various programs were not always implemented
    as designed.

       LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRUG COURTS
       (LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUNICIPAL
       COURTS PLANNING AND RESEARCH
       UNIT, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.1

    Los Angeles Municipal Court, May 1994; Rio Hondo Municipal Court,
    July 1994; Pasadena Municipal Court, May 1995; and Santa Monica
    Unified Municipal and Superior Court, January 1996.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.2

    The drug court program was restricted to nonviolent felony drug
    offenders.  Defendants charged with drug trafficking or sales, or who
    had prior convictions for those offenses, were not eligible.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  No information was provided on the
    percentage of eligible offenders who chose to participate.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.4

    At least 12 months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.6

    Program participants made frequent appearances before a designated
    judicial officer and were subject to random drug testing.  The
    three-phase treatment program included individual and group
    counseling, attendance at 12-step programs such as NA, and vocational
    and educational guidance.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.7

    Between May 1994 and June 1996, 413 offenders were admitted to the
    drug court program.  One hundred sixteen offenders were still in the
    program.  Of the remaining 297 offenders, 86 (29 percent) graduated,
    and the others were terminated.  Married participants and
    participants between the ages of 40 and 49 were the most likely to
    complete the program.  Information provided in the report suggests
    that terminations were more frequent in 1994 than in 1995 and 1996.
    Dismissal from the program resulted in reinstatement of the original
    criminal charges and prosecution.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.8

    No information was provided on drug relapse, and no comparisons are
    made to program nonparticipants.  To describe recidivism, the report
    compares the first 47 defendants who graduated from the Los Angeles
    Drug Court program to a group of 47 defendants who were terminated
    from the program.  Five of the 47 (11 percent) graduates had been
    rearrested, compared to 30 of the 47 (64 percent) offenders who were
    terminated.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.0.9

    Comparisons of graduates and nongraduates are of limited value.  This
    particular comparison is difficult to assess because no information
    was provided on whether the two groups were at risk of rearrest for
    the same amount of time and whether rearrest was a factor in
    terminations.

       LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRUG COURTS
       (DESCHENES AND TORRES, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.1

    See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.2

    See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.3

    Like the Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above), this report
    notes that the program was voluntary, but provides no information on
    the percentage of eligible offenders who chose to participate.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.4

    While the Los Angeles County Municipal Courts Planning and Research
    Unit report on these same drug courts indicates that the program
    length was 12 months, this report indicates that the treatment might
    have been as short as 6 months.  See Planning and Research Unit
    Report, 1996 (above).

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.6

    See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.7

    This report states that 504 offenders were admitted to the 4 Los
    Angeles County drug courts between May 1994 and May 1996.  It does
    not disclose how many offenders were participating at the time the
    report was written, nor does it allow an accurate estimate of
    graduation rates.  It does note that there were 64 graduates at the
    time the study began and that the termination rate was relatively
    high.  It also notes that there were a myriad of sanctions available
    for program noncompliance, that sanctions were progressive, and that
    all four courts seemed to be tolerant of relapse among participants.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.8

    This evaluation looks at a subsample of 35 individuals from among 79
    current program participants and 16 graduates interviewed by the
    authors.  Self-reported drug use and criminal behavior were found to
    be significantly higher in an unspecified number of months before
    entering the program than after entering the program.  Also, both
    graduates and current participants gave high ratings to the drug
    court program.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.0.9

    The sample employed here is primarily representative of current
    program participants, and the number of graduates for whom data were
    collected (n = 16) is too small to generalize.  The evidence provided
    is preliminary, based on potentially biased self-reports, and
    insufficient to establish program effectiveness.

       OAKLAND (F.I.R.S.T.) DRUG COURT
       (TAUBER, 1995)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.1

    Fall 1990.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.2

    The program targeted felony drug defendants.  There was no
    information about whether certain offenders were excluded.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.3

    Participation in drug diversion was statutorily mandated for
    defendants in California who were eligible.  In January and February
    of 1991, 87 percent of defendants referred were granted diversion.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.4

    The diversion term was 24 months, and the treatment component of the
    diversion program appeared to involve roughly 5 months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.5

    This report states that a conservative estimate of savings to Alameda
    County law enforcement agencies during the 3-year study period would
    be $3,000,000.  Two-thirds of this savings was accounted for by the
    33,869 fewer days in custody spent by program participants.  Also
    noted was that the County Sheriff's Department was able to rent
    unused jail cells to San Francisco and the U.S.  Immigration and
    Naturalization Service at $60.80 per day.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.6

    The program consisted of three phases:  phase 1 (3 days) involved
    diversion placement, phase 2 (2 months) involved intensive evaluation
    and supervision, and phase 3 (3 months) involved supervision and
    treatment.  During phase 2, offenders were required to attend five
    group probation sessions, take three urine tests with negative
    results, and attend four drug education and one AIDS class.  During
    phase 3, offenders were required to attend eight group probation
    sessions and to meet individually with the probation officer twice,
    to take four urine tests with negative results, and to participate in
    community counseling for 8 weeks.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.7

    Fifty-four percent of a sample of drug court program participants
    admitted during 1991 successfully completed the program and earned
    diversion dismissals.  The only reason indicated for program failure
    was failure to appear for report hearings, which could be sanctioned
    by incarceration for at least 1 week, after which the participant was
    reinstated.  Only two reinstatements were permitted before
    termination from the program.  Terminees had criminal proceedings
    reinstated.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.8

    The first 110 defendants referred to the F.I.R.S.T.  Diversion
    Program in January and February of 1991 were compared to the first
    110 defendants referred to diversion between January and March of
    1990, before the F.I.R.S.T.  Program.  Relapse rates are not
    reported, but after 3 years the average number of new felony arrests
    per defendant was 44 percent lower for the F.I.R.S.T.  Program
    participants (.75 per defendant versus 1.33 per defendant), and the
    average number of days in custody on felony offenses was 44 percent
    lower as well (44 days versus 78 days).

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.0.9

    While the length of follow-up is considerably higher here than in
    most studies, it is not clear how similar the two groups of divertees
    being compared were on characteristics relevant to recidivism, and
    there was no information on drug relapse.

       SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRUG
       TREATMENT COURT (PETERS, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.1

    September 1995.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.2

    The program included both felony and misdemeanor narcotics offenders,
    and targeted offenders with a lengthy history of substance abuse and
    criminal involvement, and a history of unsuccessful abuse treatment
    or lack of prior treatment.  Violent offenders and offenders with
    other pending cases were excluded.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.3

    Participation was voluntary; the percentage of eligible offenders who
    chose to participate is not indicated.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.6

    Participants appeared before the treatment court team "frequently"
    and were subject to drug tests on a "frequent" basis.  (Specific
    times or intervals are not specified.) Both residential and
    outpatient treatment were provided, and treatment included counseling
    and therapy, educational and vocational training, and acupuncture.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.7

    This preliminary study was done 9 months after the beginning of the
    program.  Eighty-seven percent were still participating.  No
    offenders had graduated.  Offenders could be terminated for positive
    drug tests; sanctions for those who failed to complete the program
    were not specified.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.8

    In considering rearrests, 87 treatment court participants were
    compared to 24 randomly selected defendants who were eligible to
    participate but declined.  None of the treatment court participants
    were rearrested after 9 months, compared to 21 percent of the
    comparison group.  These same two groups were compared with respect
    to real jail time served during the 9 months; treatment participants
    averaged 56 days, while the comparison group averaged 122 days.
    Treatment court participants were also compared to defendants under
    formal probation and in intensive supervision, electronic monitoring
    supervision, and general supervision over a 3-month period, with
    respect to drug relapse rates.  In the treatment group, 7 percent of
    drug tests were positive.  Among formal probationers, the percentage
    of positive drug tests ranged from 14 percent (intensive supervision)
    to 28 percent (general supervision).

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5.0.9

    While these results appear promising, the small number of drug court
    participants (87), the smaller number in the control group (24), and
    the short time of follow-up (9 months), preclude firm conclusions
    about the effect of the drug court on recidivism.  Moreover, the fact
    that no drug court participants had been rearrested results partly
    from the fact that participants who were terminated from the program
    as a result of rearrests (3 percent of participants) were excluded
    from the comparison.

       VENTURA COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (OBERG, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.1

    April 1995.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.2

    Nonviolent offenders charged with a misdemeanor drug offense.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate is not indicated.  The report states that
    drug court offenders were similar, demographically and in terms of
    drug offenses committed, to the comparison group of offenders who
    applied for entrance into the drug court program but were not
    accepted.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.5

    No systematic cost/benefit analysis is provided, but the study
    reports that "as of April 1, 1996, participants in the program have
    been ordered to serve a total of 4,981 days in custody, resulting in
    a savings of 4,839 days and a tremendous cost savings in
    incarceration costs." (p.  24.)\2

    --------------------
    \2 Page references in this appendix refer to pages in the specific
    evaluation study cited.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.6

    Offenders appeared before the drug court judge monthly, met with
    probation officers on a regular basis, and submitted to random drug
    tests.  The treatment phase of the program lasted about 8 months and
    involved counseling and attendance at AA/NA meetings.  Both
    residential and outpatient treatments were employed.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.7

    This report evaluated the first 8 months of a 12-month program, so
    none of the offenders had graduated.  Of the 75 offenders accepted
    into the program between April and December 1995, 26 (35 percent) had
    been terminated.  Terminations resulted from new crime charges, three
    dirty urine samples, and other acts of noncompliance with program
    guidelines.  Terminees served their sentences.  Males and Hispanics
    were reportedly less likely to complete the program.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.8

    Of the 966 drug tests submitted by the 75 drug court participants
    during the first 8 months of the program, 86 (9 percent) were
    positive.  In terms of recidivism, 9 of the 75 drug court
    participants (12 percent) were rearrested during the 8-month period.
    By comparison, over the same period, 32 percent of a control group of
    offenders who had applied for but not been accepted into the drug
    court program were rearrested.  The report also notes that fewer of
    the arrests of drug court offenders involved drug-related offenses
    (58 percent versus 75 percent in the control group).

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6.0.9

    While these results are positive, they are restricted to offenders
    who were still in the program and offer no information on what
    recidivism and relapse looked like after program completion.  Also,
    it is not clear whether the drug court offenders and the control
    group were similar with respect to time at risk of rearrest.

       DENVER DRUG COURT (GRANFIELD
       AND EBY, 1997)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.1

    July 1994.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.2

    This report does not indicate what types of offenders were included
    or excluded from the drug court program.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.3

    The drug court was established in response to Colorado House Bill
    91-1173, which mandated that all persons convicted under the
    Controlled Substances Act be evaluated for substance abuse.  It
    appears that participation in the drug court program was mandatory.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.4

    Twenty-four months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.5

    The report states that the Denver Drug Court had reduced case
    processing time by more than half, and significantly reduced the
    amount of time offenders spent in presentence confinement.  "At an
    average of $60 per day in jail, the court is saving between $360 to
    $840 on each drug offender.  Multiplying these individual savings by
    the total dollar value saved for 3,000 drug offenders brings the
    total savings to between $1.8 to $2.5 million per year." (p.  32.)

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.6

    Treatment was individualized, based on offenders' drug use patterns
    and levels of criminal risk.  Treatment varied across seven levels.
    Level 1 involved judicial supervision but no treatment; level 2
    involved the use of education and intense urine testing; level 3
    entailed weekly outpatient treatment and acupuncture; level 4
    required intensive outpatient treatment, including group therapy;
    level 5 required intensive residential treatment; level 6 required
    the use of therapeutic communities; and level 7 involved intensified
    surveillance but no treatment.  Most participants in the program fell
    into the first 5 categories.  Offenders appeared "frequently" in
    front of the drug court judge.  The frequency with which they were
    required to submit to drug tests is not indicated.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.7

    This report does not indicate the numbers or percentages of offenders
    who graduated from the program.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.8

    A random sample of 100 drug court defendants from December 1994 to
    March 1995 was compared to two control groups, consisting of 100
    subjects each, from predrug court years 1992/1993 and 1993/1994.
    Twenty-two percent of drug court offenders, compared to 15 percent
    and 14 percent of the 1992/1993 and 1993/1994 offenders, had
    revocations for violations of probation after 6 months, and 58
    percent of drug court offenders, compared to 53 percent and 58
    percent of the 1992/1993 and 1993/1994 offenders, were rearrested in
    12 months.  None of these differences were statistically significant.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7.0.9

    Data for the evaluation were for participants who had not had time to
    complete the program, and the short follow-up time precluded firm
    conclusions.

       D.C.  SUPERIOR COURT DRUG
       INTERVENTION PROGRAM (HARRELL
       AND CAVANAGH, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.1

    1992.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.2

    Drug felony defendants, some of whom had an extensive history of
    arrests and convictions and faced high risks of incarceration if
    convicted, were randomly assigned to one of three dockets:  (1) the
    treatment docket, which included regular drug testing, judicial
    monitoring of drug use, and "intensive day treatment"; (2) the
    sanctions docket, which included drug testing, judicial monitoring of
    drug use, and referrals to treatment; and (3) the standard docket,
    which included drug testing and judicial monitoring.  The report
    offers no information about whether violent offenders, or other types
    of offenders, were excluded from the program.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.3

    Participation in the treatment and sanctions dockets was voluntary.
    Of offenders who were sentenced before October 15, 1996, 37 percent
    of eligible offenders chose to participate in the treatment docket,
    and 75 percent chose to participate in the sanctions docket.
    Participants in the sanctions docket were older than participants in
    the treatment docket and the standard docket.  Participants in the
    treatment docket were less likely to be male and employed than
    nonparticipants; participants in the sanctions docket were more
    likely to be older, unemployed, and stronger drug users than
    nonparticipants.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.4

    The six-stage treatment program for offenders in the treatment docket
    lasted at least 6 months, depending on the speed with which offenders
    met the criteria for progressing to the next stage.  On average,
    offenders in the sanctions docket were in the program for 5 months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.6

    Offenders in the sanctions and standard dockets were tested for drugs
    twice weekly, and those in the treatment docket were tested three
    times weekly.  All dockets involved judicial monitoring, but how
    often offenders appeared before the judge is not indicated.  The
    daily treatment for all treatment docket participants included
    acupuncture, structured treatment activities, and additional support
    services.  Thirty percent of the offenders in the sanctions docket
    were referred to community-based treatment, though the nature of the
    treatment they received is not described.  Seventy-four percent of
    the sanctions docket offenders were sanctioned during their
    participation; 71 percent spent 3 days in the jury box, 44 percent
    spent 3 days in jail, 30 percent were sent to detoxification, and 14
    percent spent a week or longer in jail.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.7

    Nineteen percent of the 88 offenders who entered the treatment docket
    graduated from it.  The large majority of the offenders who did not
    complete the program were rearrested, discharged for lack of
    progress, or dropped out.  Sixty-five percent of the 194 sanctions
    docket program participants remained in the program until sentencing.
    Terminees were either doing poorly in the program or rearrested.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.8

    The program was a pretrial program, which was evaluated in terms of
    the likelihood of offenders assigned to the three dockets testing
    clean in the month before sentencing.  Twenty percent of the
    defendants assigned to the treatment docket, 32 percent of the
    defendants assigned to the sanctions docket, and 13 percent of the
    defendants assigned to the standard docket tested clean.
    Multivariate analysis reveals that sanctions program participants
    were four times as likely to test clean in the month before
    sentencing as standard program participants, while treatment program
    participants were twice as likely.  Differences between offenders who
    chose not to participate in the treatment and sanctions dockets and
    those participating in the standard docket were not significant.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8.0.9

    While the multivariate analysis undertaken here is as sophisticated
    as any we uncovered, the outcome is restricted to relapse in 1 month,
    and does not take into account whether program participants graduated
    from the programs they were participating in.  The authors note too
    that the apparent positive effect of sanctions may entirely disappear
    once defendants are not facing sentencing.

       BROWARD COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (TERRY, 1993; TERRY, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9

             PROGRAM START DATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.1

    July 1991.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.2

    The program targeted first-time offenders arrested for possession or
    purchase of cocaine.  It excluded violent offenders, offenders
    involved in drug trafficking, and offenders with prior drug or felony
    arrests, or prior felony arrests or convictions that resulted in (a)
    disposition by adjudication and sentence, (b) probation, or (c)
    participation in pretrial intervention.  It also excluded offenders
    with prior felony charges who had appeals pending at the time of
    their current arrest.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate was not indicated.  The average age of
    program participants was slightly higher than for all persons
    arrested for drug offenses in the county, and participants were
    somewhat more likely than all persons arrested for drugs to be female
    and white.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.6

    The treatment program consisted of three phases (phase I = 3 weeks,
    phase II = 23 weeks, phase III = 26 weeks), which varied in terms of
    treatment type and intensity.  Offenders appeared at probation
    monthly and submitted to urine tests five times per week during phase
    I and three times per week during phase II.  Treatment included group
    and individual therapy, fellowship meetings, and acupuncture.

             GRADUATION RATE
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.7

    Seven hundred eighty-seven persons entered the program in its first
    year; 307 (39 percent) graduated.  Many offenders failed to complete
    the program because the cases against them were dropped, they were
    transferred to other districts, they requested trials or regular
    probation, or they no longer met eligibility criteria.  No clear
    information is provided on how many offenders failed to complete the
    program due to program noncompliance, nor whether they faced
    sanctions.  The report notes, however, that almost two-thirds of the
    program noncompleters left because the state attorney decided to drop
    the case against them.

             EVALUATION
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.8

    The evaluation compares rearrest rates for persons who were admitted
    to and graduated from the program in its first year and to persons
    who met the eligibility requirements of the program but did not
    participate.  After 25 to 37 months since entering the program, 39
    percent of the persons admitted, 25 percent of the graduates, and 30
    percent of the nonparticipants had been rearrested for a new felony.
    Fifty percent of the persons admitted, 48 percent of the graduates,
    and 43 percent of the nonparticipants had been rearrested for a new
    felony or misdemeanor.  Some differences in the types of offenses
    committed were found, with treatment graduates being somewhat less
    likely than nonparticipants to be rearrested for new drug offenses
    and violent offenses.  There were also some differences in the timing
    of arrests between groups.

             ASSESSMENT
    --------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9.0.9

    There is no systematic evaluation of treatment effects in terms of
    drug relapse in this study, though the 1993 report indicated that 79
    percent of the persons who graduated from the program or were still
    active in it had at least one positive cocaine test.  The lack of
    significance tests and possibility of selection bias in the report
    makes it difficult to evaluate the rearrest differences presented.

       BROWARD COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (COMMISSION AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
       1995)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:10

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.1

    See Terry, 1996 (above).

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.2

    See Terry, 1996 (above).

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate during the 3 years (July 1, 1991, through
    September 30, 1994) covered by this report is not clearly indicated,
    but it appears that as many as 27 percent of offenders may have
    declined treatment.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.4

    See Terry, 1996 (above).

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.5

    This report indicates that the cost to complete the 12-month drug
    court program ranged from $3,215 to $5,834 (with the treatment
    portion of this cost ranging from $247 to $449 per month).  The
    report's authors offered, as a point of reference, the cost of a
    6-month jail sentence, which was $8,400.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.6

    See Terry, 1996 (above).  This report states that the extent of
    treatment may have been overstated due to the ongoing failure of
    defendants to attend treatment, though this finding appears to be
    based on a very small sample of defendants.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.7

    Adjusting for the defendants remaining in treatment, this report
    indicates a 35-percent graduation rate over the 3 years, which is
    similar to Terry's estimate for the first year (see Terry, 1996,
    above).  Contrary to McNeece and Daly, however, this report states
    that arrests for driving under the influence, cannabis possession, or
    any felony while participating in the program resulted in immediate
    termination.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.8

    This report provides information on rearrests for a random sample of
    30 drug court graduates who had graduated between 4 and 25 months
    before the arrest search.  Six of the 30 (20 percent) were rearrested
    during the program and 3 of the 30 (10 percent) were arrested after
    graduation.  This report also shows, for a sample of 29 drug court
    graduates and similarly small samples of probation and nonprobation
    drug court participants, that positive drug tests declined with time
    in treatment.  No comparisons were made to nonparticipants.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:10.0.9

    Small samples and the lack of comparison data make these results
    difficult to assess.

       BROWARD COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (MCNEECE AND DALY, 1993)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:11

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.1

    See Terry, 1996 (above).

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.2

    See Terry, 1996 (above).  This report states that at some point
    eligibility requirements were modified to include drug offenders
    involved in drugs other than cocaine (such as possession of marijuana
    and barbiturates), and those with previous felony drug convictions.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate during the year of operation described by
    this report (1992) is not indicated, but the report notes as a
    disturbing trend that almost all clients with private attorneys chose
    not to participate.  It also notes that many clients requested
    transfers to other courts, where they were almost certain to receive
    probation with no treatment.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.4

    See Terry, 1996 (above).

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.6

    See Terry, 1996 (above).  This report indicates that during Phase III
    of treatment, urine tests were performed once a week and that
    treatment during this phase emphasized educational and work skills.
    Vocational evaluation, on-the-job training, and job skills and
    readiness classes were also provided.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.7

    This report notes that of the 1,008 defendants who appeared in this
    drug court in 1992, only 48 (or 5 percent) graduated.  This figure
    greatly underestimates the graduation rate, however, as roughly half
    the participants entering in that year were still active, and about a
    third were either not accepted or were transferred to other courts.
    While rearrests appeared to be responsible for some portion of
    terminations, the report notes that, in most cases, rearrests did not
    lead to dismissal from the program.  The report notes that
    African-Americans were less likely than others to complete treatment.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.8

    This report provides information on rearrests for the 1,008 offenders
    who appeared in the court in 1992, but is not clear about how long
    they had been at risk of rearrest.  (Since half were still active, we
    can assume that for many offenders the time at risk was less than 1
    year.) Eleven percent were rearrested, jailed, sent to prison, or had
    warrants issued for their arrest.  Eleven percent also had one or
    more violations of probation while in the program.  Drug test results
    were available for only 323 of the 1,008 participants; 52 (16
    percent) were "dirty" on one or more occasions.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:11.0.9

    This information does not distinguish graduates from program
    terminees in assessing rearrests and relapse, nor does it compare
    program participants with nonparticipants.  Also, the length of
    follow-up was short, and for some participants involved only a matter
    of months.

       DADE COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (GOLDKAMP AND WEILAND, 1993)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:12

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.1

    1989.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.2

    The drug court was initially designed to accept offenders charged
    with third-degree felony drug possession who had no prior
    convictions, but has shown some flexibility in its admissions
    criteria.  This study focuses on a sample of offenders (n = 326)
    admitted in August and September 1990.  Among them, one-third had
    prior felony arrests, and 11 percent had prior arrests for serious
    crimes against persons.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.3

    Participation appeared to be voluntary.  The percentage of eligible
    offenders who chose to participate is not clearly indicated.  It
    appears that the drug court participants were more likely than
    eligible offenders who chose not to participate to be male and to
    have fewer prior arrests, including drug arrests.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.6

    Judicial monitoring and drug tests were components of the program,
    which proceeded through three phases:  phase 1 (detoxification),
    phase 2 (counseling), and phase 3 (educational/vocational
    assessment).  On average, participants took 24 drug tests while in
    the program; how frequently they appeared before the drug court judge
    is not indicated.  Acupuncture was used on a voluntary basis.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.7

    Of the 326 offenders in the study group, 28 percent were still active
    after 18 months, and 14 percent had their charges dropped or were
    transferred out of the program.  Of the remaining 189, 110 (or 58
    percent) graduated or successfully completed diversion.  The report
    states that "motivational jail" terms of 2 weeks were sometimes used
    to sanction offenders who failed to comply or were rearrested.
    Roughly half of the drug court defendants failed to appear in drug
    court at least once, compared to from 6 to 10 percent of other felony
    offenders who were not assigned to the drug court program.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.8

    The 326 offenders admitted to the drug court program were compared to
    four other samples:  (1) felony drug defendants in the same period
    who were not eligible for the program because of more serious
    offenses (n = 199), (2) nondrug felony defendants in the same period
    (n = 185), (3) felony drug defendants from a period several years
    earlier (n = 302), and (4) felony nondrug defendants from a period
    several years earlier (n = 536).  Data were collected from a fifth
    comparison sample of offenders who were assigned to the drug court
    but did not participate.  These data, however, were not employed in
    the evaluation involving rearrests.  After 18 months, drug court
    defendants had a significantly lower rearrest rate than the other 4
    groups (33 percent versus 40 percent to 53 percent), and a
    significantly longer period before rearrest (median of 235 days
    versus 52 to 115 days for the other groups).

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:12.0.9

    These results are quite positive but, as we stated in our previous
    report, must be viewed with caution as a result of a lack of
    comparability between groups, especially in terms of offense
    seriousness and criminal history.

       DADE COUNTY DRUG COURT (SMITH,
       DAVIS, AND GORETSKY, 1991)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:13

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.1

    June 19, 1989.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.2

    See Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993.  This report notes that eligible
    offenders had to admit to having a drug problem for which they wanted
    treatment.  The report also notes that eligibility requirements were
    relaxed over time.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  This report does not indicate what
    percentage of eligible offenders chose to participate.  It does note
    that of 1,100 cases that had been referred to the drug court, 300
    were transferred out, 200 were nollied, 100 resulted in bench
    warrants, 100 were prosecuted in some other way, and 411 (or 15
    percent) "received the 'drug court' stamp.  Thus, those who made it
    to the drug court are a very select group." (p.  5.)

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.4

    This report states that while a 12-month program was envisioned, the
    length of time it took an offender to complete it varied, depending
    on the individual's progress.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.5

    No systematic cost/benefit analysis is provided.  The report states
    that the drug court treatment program cost $700 per year compared
    with the $17,000 cost of housing inmates in the local jail, and that
    the county paid the cost of treatment.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.6

    See Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993.  This report notes that in general,
    offenders appeared before the drug court judge every 30 to 60 days.
    It also indicates that individual and group counseling, and
    attendance at AA/NA meetings, were frequently employed.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.7

    No information was provided on the percentage of offenders who
    completed the drug court program.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.8

    The evaluation involves a comparison of rearrest rates for persons
    assigned to the drug court in January 1990 through March 1990 (n =
    318), and a subgroup of persons assigned to the drug court who
    actually participated in it (n = 148), with a sample of predrug court
    narcotics cases from early 1988 (n = 99).  Persons assigned to the
    drug court were similar to predrug court offenders with respect to
    rearrests (32 percent versus 33 percent), while the participants had
    lower rearrest rates (15 percent).

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:13.0.9

    The authors note that the differences between drug court participants
    and predrug court cases should be viewed cautiously, due to the
    selective nature of the latter group.

       HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (MCNEECE AND DALY, 1993)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:14

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.1

    June 1992.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.2

    The program was targeted for first-time offenders charged with simple
    possession or purchase of cocaine.  The report states, however, that
    in actual practice offenders charged with other types of drug
    offenses and who had previous records could be considered.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.3

    Participation was voluntary, but the percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate is not indicated.  The report states,
    however, that self-selection could have been at work, as
    African-Americans were underrepresented among program participants.
    While they accounted for 54 percent of all drug arrests, they
    comprised only 33 percent of drug court participants.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.6

    The frequency with which participants appeared before the drug court
    judges varied, depending on progress and ranged from once every 2 to
    4 weeks to once every 2 or 3 months.  The treatment program consisted
    of three phases.  During phase 1 (first 3 weeks), random urine tests
    were done three times a week, and treatment consisted of acupuncture
    and individual and group counseling.  During phase 2 (weeks 4 through
    12), random urine tests were done twice a week, participants received
    acupuncture and attended group therapy sessions, and were encouraged
    to attend AA/NA meetings.  During phase 3 (weeks 13 through 52),
    random urine tests were done three times a month, and participants
    were required to participate in a structured aftercare support group,
    encouraged to attend AA/NA meetings, and given individual counseling
    as needed.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.7

    The report states that as of November 1993, only 23 participants had
    been discharged from the program (thus implying that all but those 23
    participants were still active in the program).  Twelve (52 percent)
    were discharged as successful.  The 11 terminees were discharged due
    to new drug arrests (2), new nondrug felony arrests (2), or
    persistent noncompliance (7).

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.8

    The program had not been formally evaluated, but the report states
    that it had been selected for a longitudinal study to track relapse
    and recidivism among participants over a period of several years.
    The only evaluation provided here involves responses from a random
    sample of program participants interviewed, the size of which is not
    indicated.  Sixty-three percent and 37 percent reported being very
    satisfied or pretty satisfied with the program (only one participant
    was dissatisfied), and 70 percent and 26 percent found it to be very
    or somewhat effective.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:14.0.9

    The lack of systematic information on what percentage of offenders
    eligible for the program entered it, the very preliminary information
    on the percentage who successfully completed it, and the absence of
    information on relapse and rearrests after program completion for
    participants and a comparison group makes it impossible to determine
    the efficacy of the program.  It is not indicated whether the planned
    longitudinal study was to include a comparison group of
    nonparticipants.

       BALTIMORE CITY DRUG TREATMENT
       COURT (GOTTFREDSON, COBLENTZ,
       AND HARMON, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:15

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.1

    March 1994.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.2

    The program was targeted toward nonviolent offenders with drug abuse
    problems.  The "instant" offenses that led to assignment to drug
    court were most often drug-related or property crimes.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.3

    It appears that participation was voluntary for some offenders but
    not for others.  Offenders were diverted from prosecution contingent
    upon an agreement to participate in a drug treatment program.  Others
    who were not deemed eligible for diversion from prosecution were
    required to participate in a drug treatment program as a condition of
    parole or probation.  The percentage of eligible offenders who
    entered the drug court treatment program is not indicated.  The
    report notes that drug court clients were historically frequent
    offenders compared to other eligible probationers and that the
    offenses for which they were convicted were as serious or more
    serious in nature than those in the comparison group.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.4

    Not indicated.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.6

    The report states that intensive supervision and frequent drug
    testing were used but does not provide specific information on
    frequency of contacts with the courts or drug tests.  The program
    services (treatment) may have included education, unspecified
    substance abuse treatment, job readiness and placement, life skills
    training, and housing assistance.  Graduated sanctions and
    incarceration were used to induce program compliance.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.7

    The program completion rate is not indicated.  Incarceration could be
    imposed when offenders failed to comply with program requirements.
    The nature and extent of sanctions were not examined.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.8

    To determine whether the drug court program services were more
    effective than those provided under traditional probation and parole,
    145 offenders who were assigned to the drug court treatment in its
    first year of operation were compared to offenders not assigned.
    Rearrests after 180 days were compared, separately for offenders from
    (1) the district court (n = 84 in the treatment group and 351 in the
    control group), (2) the circuit court (n = 34 in the treatment group
    and 125 in the control group), and (3) the district court for
    violations of probation (n = 27 in the treatment group and 53 in the
    control group).  Twenty-three percent, 26 percent, and 18 percent of
    the district, circuit, and violations of probation treatment cases
    were rearrested, respectively, compared to 27 percent, 30 percent,
    and 30 percent of controls.  While none of these differences were
    statistically significant, a significantly lower rearrest rate among
    drug court cases emerged when other factors affecting rearrests
    (i.e., criminal history, characteristics of the instant offense, and
    demographic variables) were statistically controlled.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:15.0.9

    These preliminary results appear positive, but firmer conclusions
    await a lengthier follow-up with a more diverse group of treatment
    court participants, including those who enter through the diversion
    track.

       CLARK COUNTY DRUG COURT
       (CHOICES UNLIMITED LAS VEGAS,
       1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:16

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.1

    October 1992.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.2

    Initially, most participants were offenders charged with possession
    of a controlled substance or under the influence of a controlled
    substance, who had no prior felony convictions and no noncriteria
    offense currently in the system.  Persons who wished to participate
    but did not meet admissions criteria could be allowed to
    conditionally participate.  Such persons might not receive a
    dismissal of underlying criminal charges and might be required to pay
    treatment costs.  It appears that many participants in the most
    recent year covered by the report (1995-1996) were charged with
    possession with intent to sell, low-level trafficking, and
    nondrug-related property offenses such as burglary.  The report is
    unclear about whether violent offenders were excluded as well.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate is not indicated.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.6

    Participants appeared in the drug court frequently--between weekly
    and monthly--depending on progress.  Urine tests were taken every
    other day in the first phase of the program, and periodically in
    phases 2 through 4.  Participants could not proceed from phase 1 to 2
    or from phase 2 to 3 until they had five consecutive negative tests,
    could not proceed from phase 3 to phase 4 until they had 6 months of
    negative tests, and had to test clean for a minimum of 3 months to
    graduate.  Treatment components varied by phase and included
    detoxification; individual, group, and family counseling; wellness
    education sessions; and job training.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.7

    As of April 1, 1996, 1,544 offenders had been referred to the
    program.  Seventy-eight offenders never actually started treatment,
    and 795 offenders were still active in the program.  Of the remaining
    671 offenders, 382 (57 percent) had graduated.  Reasons for
    termination included new arrests, positive urine tests, and
    noncompliance with program requirements.  Similar termination rates
    among ethnic groups and between male and female participants were
    reported.  However, termination rates were higher for participants
    entering the program under the influence or in possession of a
    controlled substance offense, particularly cocaine and amphetamine.
    The report does not indicate what happened to program terminees.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.8

    The only evaluation component of the report involved a calculation of
    rearrests among the 382 graduates over the 42 months of the court's
    operation.  Only 24 (6 percent) of the graduates had been rearrested
    on new charges since their release.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:16.0.9

    While the absence of a control group makes the rearrest information
    difficult to interpret, the 6-percent recidivism rate seems
    remarkable, especially since many graduates would have had
    substantial periods at risk of rearrest.  It is not clear whether
    these figures included arrests during program participation, or
    whether such arrests automatically triggered termination.

       MULTNOMAH COUNTY S.T.O.P.
       PROGRAM (AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
       COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
       PROJECT, 1994)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:17

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.1

    August 1991.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.2

    The S.T.O.P.  (Sanction-Treatment-Opportunity-Progress) program was
    targeted for defendants charged with felony drug possession offenses
    with no involvement in significant drug dealing, no holds from other
    jurisdictions, no other felony or Class A person misdemeanor charges
    pending, and no driving under the influence charges in the same
    charging instrument.  A defendant's criminal history was no barrier
    to participation provided other qualification criteria were met.
    Since the program was first implemented, criminal history
    requirements were relaxed and gang affiliation was abandoned as a
    restriction on program participation.  The report indicates that
    because of the relaxed eligibility criteria and Oregon's relatively
    lenient sentencing provisions, the drug court handled a significantly
    larger percentage (26 percent) of the total drug caseload than most
    courts.  "Drug courts programs in other jurisdictions generally
    account for less than five percent of their jurisdiction's total drug
    caseload."

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.3

    Participation was voluntary, but the percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate is not indicated.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.5

    While the report states that "costs per case for STOP cases .  .  .
    have been substantially reduced compared with the costs per cases
    handled in the traditional adjudication process," dollar values were
    left blank in the draft of the report we reviewed.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.6

    S.T.O.P.  program participants appeared before the program judge
    monthly during this four-phase program.  In phase 1 (4 weeks), they
    submitted six drug tests per week and received acupuncture and drug
    education classes.  During phase 2 (4-1/2 months), they submitted to
    random drug tests, acupuncture, and group counseling three times a
    week.  In phase 3 (approximately 6 months), they submitted to random
    drug tests and counseling tailored to their needs.  Phase 4, added in
    the program's second year, involved biweekly urine tests and
    participation in AA/NA meetings five times a week for 2 months.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.7

    Between August 1, 1991, and June 9, 1994, 1,611 defendants were
    admitted to the program.  Seven hundred three were still active, and
    of the remaining 908, 367 (or 40 percent) had graduated.  There is no
    indication of what factors were primarily responsible for failure to
    complete the program (i.e., rearrests, positive urine tests, etc.),
    though it is noted that, on average, program completers had longer
    histories of drug use and were older, more likely to be married and
    residentially stable, and more likely to have consistently attended
    acupuncture and other treatment sessions.  Program completers had
    their criminal indictments dismissed, while terminees stood for trial
    before the S.T.O.P.  program judge at the same status hearing in
    which the termination occurred.  Failures to appear were sanctioned
    by program suspensions, appearances before the court, and bench
    warrants.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.8

    The evaluation provided is very preliminary, and it appears that many
    of the numbers provided were in need of updating or verification.
    The information provided involves a comparison of 105 S.T.O.P.
    participants who had graduated from the program and 78 participants
    who had been terminated, and is restricted to numbers and percents in
    the two groups who had positive drug tests and bench warrants.  It
    appears that, in each of the four phases of the program, graduates
    were more likely than terminees to show for drug tests, and in at
    least the second and third phases, less likely to test positive
    (i.e., dirty).  There was also a smaller average number of bench
    warrants issued for program graduates (0.73) than terminees (2.15).

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:17.0.9

    These results are preliminary.  It is not clear why the evaluation
    done involved only 105 of the 367 graduates, and only 78 of the 542
    terminees.  It appears that the urine tests and bench warrants were
    considered only for the period of their participation in the program,
    so these figures provide no information on long-term effects.  The
    study also provides no information on nonparticipants.

       SODAT-DELAWARE, INC.  DRUG
       COURT DIVERSION PROGRAM (REED,
       1995)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:18

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.1

    April 1994.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.2

    Participants were first-time drug offenders with no prior drug
    convictions.  Offenders who were excluded are not indicated, except
    for repeat drug offenders.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.3

    Not indicated.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.4

    Five to 6 months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.5

    The only information on cost savings from the program was the
    statement that "For the cost of keeping just 8 offenders in prison
    for 1 year, SODAT has successfully diverted and treated 219 drug
    offenders in the community and started them on the road to recovery
    from their addictions."

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.6

    Participants appeared before the drug court judge, usually once a
    month, and were required to submit to random urine screening
    throughout their stay in the program.  Treatment was not well
    described--"three counselors provide active substance abuse
    counseling." (p.  1.)

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.7

    After 1 year, 71 percent (90 of 127) of the program participants who
    were not still active in the program and had not been transferred to
    more intensive treatment had graduated.  Men had slightly higher
    graduation rates than women, and whites and blacks with less severe
    drug problems had higher completion rates.  The report also states
    that age, education, and employment were related to program success.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.8

    Approximately 80 percent of program participants had been drug tested
    during the program, and roughly half of those tested had one or more
    positive urines.  Program graduates were less likely than
    nongraduates to have one or more positive urines (35 percent versus
    80 percent).  Only 4 percent of program participants, and 8 percent
    of participants not still active in the program, had been discharged
    due to rearrests.  Participants were not compared to offenders who
    did not participate in the program.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:18.0.9

    This program was just 1 year old at the time of this report, and the
    few details offered about program effects do not permit firm
    conclusions.

       TRAVIS COUNTY DRUG DIVERSION
       COURT (KELLY, 1996)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:19

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.1

    August 1993.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.2

    The Travis County SHORT (System of Healthy Options for Release and
    Treatment) Program was modeled after the Dade County Drug Diversion
    Program and targeted drug offenders who exhibited evidence of
    addiction and had a limited criminal history.  It excluded offenders
    who were involved in significant drug dealing, had holds from other
    jurisdictions, had prior felony convictions for violent crimes, or
    had other felony charges pending.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The report notes that a significant
    number of eligible defendants either refused entrance or failed to
    participate from the outset.  No information was provided on the
    percentage of eligible offenders who chose to participate.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.5

    No information was provided.

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.6

    While the report indicates that court appearances and urine testing
    were components of the program, it does not indicate how frequently
    either occurred.  The treatment program consisted of three phases,
    which varied in terms of intensity of supervision and treatment.
    Treatment components included counseling, acupuncture, and AA/NA and
    drug education meetings.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.7

    Four hundred fifty-five defendants had entered the program since its
    inception; 232 were still active, and of the remaining 223, 74 (or 33
    percent) had graduated.  The primary reasons stated for not
    completing the program were failure to appear, requesting to withdraw
    and have their case indicted, failure to comply with the program, and
    rearrests.  The report states that noncompliance (including positive
    urine tests, missed meetings and court appearances, and rearrest),
    was tolerated in an effort to retain program participants.
    Noncompliance was sanctioned in a variety of ways, including by
    increasing urine tests, court appearances, and jail time.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.8

    The evaluation involves only information on rearrests, for a small
    sample of 22 program graduates and a sample of 27 individuals who
    were arrested before the program was established but would have been
    eligible for it.  After 1 year, 6 of the 22 program participants (27
    percent) had been rearrested, compared to 16 of the 27 individuals
    (59 percent) in the comparison group.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:19.0.9

    These preliminary results are positive, though the authors note
    problems in the comparability of the two groups, in the small sample
    sizes, and in the short period of follow-up.

       JACKSON COUNTY DRUG COURT
       DIVERSION PROGRAM (JAMESON AND
       PETERSON, 1995)
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:20

             PROGRAM START DATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.1

    October 1993.

             PARTICIPANT RESTRICTIONS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.2

    The report states that individuals charged with possession of drugs
    or drug paraphernalia, sale of controlled substances (under specified
    amounts), fraudulent prescriptions, and prostitution were presumed to
    be drug users and eligible to participate.  Other offenders were
    eligible if they and/or their family, friends, or attorney stated
    that they were a drug user or tested positive for drugs at the time
    of arrest.  Relative to persons admitted to the Jackson County
    Department of Corrections, the program may have been
    overrepresentative of blacks and females.

             PARTICIPATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.3

    Participation was voluntary.  The percentage of eligible offenders
    who chose to participate is not indicated.

             PROGRAM LENGTH
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.4

    Twelve months.

             PROGRAM COSTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.5

    While no formal cost/benefit analysis is provided, the report states
    that, "if it assumed that the 257 active clients would otherwise have
    been incarcerated for 21 days .  .  .  the savings to the county may
    be estimated to be approximately 5,400 inmate days at a minimum cost
    savings of $246,000."

             TREATMENT COMPONENTS
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.6

    This was a three-phase program.  Phase 1 (3 weeks) involved
    assessment.  Phase 2 (14 weeks) included acupuncture; individual,
    group, and family counseling; and attendance at AA/NA/CA meetings.
    Finally, phase 3 (36 weeks) included reduced treatment and continued
    meeting requirements.  Judicial monitoring and drug testing were
    included throughout; participants met with the drug court judge
    monthly and submitted urine tests twice weekly during phase 2.
    (Frequencies are not given for the other phases.) The report notes
    that compliance rates (the percentage of appointments made that were
    kept) varied by program components, from 34 percent for 12-step
    meetings to 49 percent for acupuncture to 81 percent for diversion
    management sessions.

             GRADUATION RATE
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.7

    Of the 450 offenders processed in the first year of operation of this
    12-month program, 257 were still active.  Of the remaining 193 cases,
    only 1 (0.5 percent) had graduated from the program.  The majority of
    participants terminated were for noncompliance with program
    requirements (52 percent); 19 percent opted out of the program after
    beginning it and took their cases through the traditional criminal
    processing procedures.

             EVALUATION
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.8

    Negative (clean) urine test rates were indicated for program
    participants and shown to vary by phase; phase 1 (22 percent), phase
    2 (53 percent), and phase 3 (81 percent).  Rearrest rates for the 450
    program participants were compared to rearrest rates for a group of
    4,755 offenders admitted to the Jackson County Department of
    Corrections between 1991 and 1994 who had comparable eligibility and
    were at risk of rearrest.  Four percent of the program participants
    versus 13 percent of the comparison group were rearrested after
    roughly 6 months.

             ASSESSMENT
    -------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:20.0.9

    It is unclear whether urine test rates refer to the percentage of
    negative tests or the percentage of participants with negative tests.
    It is also unclear whether program participants were included among
    the comparison group, which would diminish slightly the difference in
    rearrests between groups.  It is not clear how many of the program
    participants rearrested were still in the program at the time of
    their rearrest, and it is too early to tell how different program
    completers would be from noncompleters and eligible nonparticipants
    in the long-term.

    SUMMARY DATA ON THE STATUS OF DRUG
    COURT PROGRAMS BY JURISDICTION AS
    OF MARCH 31, 1997
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

              Start date                Status                   Funding sources
              -----------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------
                                                                     Stat
                                    About   Being  Studying          e/
    Jurisdic  Actu  Plann  Operati  to      plann  feasibili  Feder  Loca  Priva  Fe
    tion        al     ed  ng       start   ed     ty         al     l     te     es
    --------  ----  -----  -------  ------  -----  ---------  -----  ----  -----  --
    Alabama

    Atmore
    (juvenil
    e/
    Creek
    tribe)

    Birmingh   01/
    am          96
    (adult)

    Birmingh   01/
    am          96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Cullman

    Mobile     02/
                93

    Montgome
    ry

    Tuscaloo   03/
    sa          97

    Alaska

    Gambell\   12/
    a           95

    Juneau

    Arizona

    Globe
    (juvenil
    e)

    Peach
    Springs
    (Hualapa
    i tribe)

    Phoenix    03/
                92

    Sacaton
    (Gila
    River
    Indian
    Communit
    y)

    Scottsda          10/
    le                 97
    (Salt
    River
    Pima-
    Maricopa
    Indian
    Communit
    y)

    Tucson            07/
    (adult)            97

    Tucson
    (juvenil
    e)

    Yuma

    Arkansas

    Little     06/
    Rock        94

    Californ
    ia

    Bakersfi   07/
    eld         93

    Chico      06/
                95

    El Cajon

    El Monte   07/
                94

    Eureka\b   02/
                97

    Fairfiel   03/
    d           97

    Fresno     03/
                96

    Hayward\          07/
    b                  97

    Huntingt          05/
    on                 97
    Park\b

    Indio

    Inglewoo          05/
    d\b                97

    Kern       02/
    County-     95
    East
    Municipa
    l\b

    Kern       07/
    County-     94
    North
    Municipa
    l\b

    Laguna     01/
    Niguel      97

    Los        05/
    Angeles     94
    (adult)

    Los
    Angeles
    (juvenil
    e)

    Martinez

    Modesto    06/
                95

    Oakland    01/
    (adult/     91
    diversio
    n)

    Oakland    01/
    (adult/     95
    postadju
    dication
    )

    Pasadena   05/
                95

    Portervi   04/
    lle         96

    Prosserv   04/
    ille\c      96

    Redlands   04/
    \b          95

    Richmond   01/
    \b          97

    Riversid   09/
    e           95

    Rosevill   09/
    e           95

    Sacramen   03/
    to          96

    Salinas    07/
                95

    San        11/
    Bernardi    94
    no

    San        03/
    Diego\b     97

    San        03/
    Francisc    95
    o
    (adult)

    San               10/
    Francisc           97
    o
    (juvenil
    e)

    San Jose   09/
    (adult)     95

    San        08/
    Jose        96
    (juvenil
    e)\d

    San Luis
    Obispo

    San        10/
    Mateo       95

    Santa      03/
    Ana         95
    (adult)

    Santa
    Ana
    (juvenil
    e)\b

    Santa      03/
    Barbara     96

    Santa
    Cruz
    (juvenil
    e)

    Santa      03/
    Maria       96

    Santa      01/
    Monica      96

    Santa      02/
    Rosa        96

    Stockton   07/
                95

    Tulare     10/
    (juvenil    95
    e)

    Tulare     05/
    (adult)     96

    Ukiah      09/
                96

    Van
    Nuys
    Regional
    \b

    Ventura    04/
                95

    Visalia    03/
                96

    Vista      01/
                97

    Woodland   03/
                95

    Yosemite   01/
    National    95
    Park-
    Federal
    Court

    Colorado

    Denver     07/
                94

    Connecti
    cut

    Bridgepo          07/
    rt                 97

    Hartford

    New        07/
    Haven       96

    Delaware

    Dover      04/
                96

    Georgeto   04/
    wn          96

    Wilmingt   10/
    on          93
    (adult)

    Wilmingt   09/
    on          95
    (juvenil
    e)

    District of
    Columbia
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Washingt   07/
    on          94
    (adult)

    Washingt
    on
    (juvenil
    e)

    Florida

    Bartow     12/
                94

    Crestvie   10/
    w           93

    Daytona\          07/
    b                  97

    Fort       06/
    Lauderda    91
    le
    (adult)

    Fort              10/
    Lauderda           97
    le
    (juvenil
    e)

    Gainesvi   03/
    lle         94

    Jacksonv   09/
    ille        94

    Key West   05/
    (adult)     93

    Key        04/
    West        96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Marathon   06/
    (adult)     95

               05/
    Marathon    96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Miami      06/
                89

    Moore
    Haven

    Ocala             04/
                       97

    Opa-
    Locka

    Orlando           06/
    (adult)\           97
    b

    Orlando           07/
    (juvenil           97
    e)

    Panama     01/
    City\b      97

    Pensacol   06/
    a           93
    (adult)

    Pensacol   02/
    a           96
    (parents
    )

    Pensacol   04/
    a           96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Plantati   05/
    on Key      95
    (adult)

    Plantati   05/
    on Key      96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Sarasota   02/
                97

    Tallahas   01/
    see         94

    Tampa      06/
    (adult-     92
    diversio
    n)

    Tampa      07/
    (adult-     94
    postadju
    dication
    )

    Tampa      02/
    (juvenil    96
    e)

    Viera      10/
                94

    Georgia

    Atlanta    03/
                97

    Brunswic
    k

    Covingto
    n
    (juvenil
    e)

    Macon      01/
                94

    Guam

    Agana
    (juvenil
    e)

    Hawaii

    Honolulu   01/
                96

    Idaho

    Boise\b

    Illinois

    Blooming
    ton

    Chicago    05/
    (adult)\    89
    b e

    Chicago    02/
    (neighbo    97
    rhood
    model)\b

    Cook       10/
    County      96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Decatur

    Edwardsv   03/
    ille        96

    Kankakee   02/
    (adult)\    97
    b

                      10/
    Kankakee           97
    (juvenil
    e)

    Markham    03/
                94

    Peoria

    Rockford   10/
                96

    Saint
    Charles

    Indiana

    Fort
    Wayne

    Gary       06/
    (juvenil    95
    e)

    Gary       09/
    (adult)     96

    Lafayett          04/
    e\b                97

    Lake       09/
    County      96

    Lawrence
    burg
    (juvenil
    e)

    South      02/
    Bend        97

    Terre      10/
    Haute       96

    Iowa

    Des        09/
    Moines      96

    Kansas

    Wichita    07/
                95

    Kentucky

    Bowling           04/
    Green              97

    Frankfor
    t

    Hickman

    Louisvil   07/
    le          93

    Louisian
    a

    Alexandr
    ia

    Baton      01/
    Rouge       95
    (adult)

    Baton
    Rouge
    (juvenil
    e)

    Franklin   01/
                97

    Gretna            06/
                       97

    Harvey
    (juvenil
    e)

    Lafayett
    e

    Lake       02/
    Charles\    97
    b

    Monroe            01/
                       98

    Monroe
    (Ouachit
    a)

    New
    Orleans

    Oberlin

    Thibodau
    x

    Vidalia
    (juvenil
    e)

    Maine

    Alfred

    Maryland

    Annapoli
    s\b

    Baltimor   03/
    e           94
    (adult-
    District
    )

    Baltimor   10/
    e           94
    (adult-
    Circuit)

    Baltimor          10/
    e                  97
    (juvenil
    e-
    Circuit)

    Montgome
    ry
    County\b

    Massachu
    setts

    Dorchest   06/
    er          95

    Framingh
    am
    (juvenil
    e)

    Franklin   01/
    County      97
    (family)
    \b

    Lawrence

    Lynn

    New               12/
    Bedford            97

    Salem
    (juvenil
    e)

    Springfi
    eld\b

    Worceste   02/
    r           96

    Michigan

    Detroit

    Kalamazo   06/
    o           92
    (females
    )

    Kalamazo   01/
    o           97
    (males)\
    b

    Kalamazo
    o
    (juvenil
    e)

    Mt.
    Clemens

    Pontiac\   03/
    b           93

    St.        10/
    Joseph      91

    Minnesot
    a

    Minneapo   01/
    lis         97

    Mississi
    ppi

    Gulfport

    Jackson           07/
                       97

    Jackson
    (juvenil
    e)\b

    Missouri

    Benton
    (juvenil
    e)

    Clayton\
    b

    Jefferso
    n City
    (juvenil
    e)

    Kansas     10/
    City        93

    Lexingto   06/
    n           96

    St.               04/
    Louis              97

    Montana

    Browning
    (Blackfe
    et
    tribe)

               10/
    Missoula    96
    (juvenil
    e)

    Nebraska

    Omaha             04/
                       97

    Nevada

    Las        10/
    Vegas       92
    (adult)

    Las        04/
    Vegas       95
    (juvenil
    e)

    Reno       08/
    (family)    94

    Reno       07/
    (adult)     95

    Reno       07/
    (juvenil    95
    e)

    New
    Jersey

    Camden     04/
                96

    Jersey
    City
    (juvenil
    e)

    Long              07/
    Branch             97

    Newark            05/
    (superio           97
    r)

    Paterson

    New
    Mexico

    Albuquer   09/
    que         95

    Aztec
    (juvenil
    e)

    Las        04/
    Cruces      95
    (adult-
    Magistra
    te)

    Las        12/
    Cruces      95
    (adult-
    Municipa
    l)

    Mesilla    04/
                95

    Santa Fe

    Sunland    02/
    Park\f      95

    New York

    Amherst\   09/
    b           96

    Bronx

    Brooklyn   06/
                96

    Buffalo    01/
                96

    Ithaca

    Lackawan   01/
    na\b        96

    Manhatta
    n\b

    Niagara
    Falls

    Oswego

    Queens

    Renssela
    er
    (juvenil
    e)

    Rocheste   01/
    r           95

    Rockland
    County

    Suffolk    09/
    County      96

    Syracuse   01/
                97

    North
    Carolina

    Charlott   02/
    e           95

    Cherokee
    (juvenil
    e/
    Cherokee
    tribe)

    Person/    07/
    Caswell     96
    Counties

    Raleigh    05/
                96

    Warrento   12/
    n           96

    Wilmingt          05/
    on\b               97

    Winston-   06/
    Salem       96

    Ohio

    Akron      06/
                95

    Butler     09/
    County      96

    Canton

    Chillico
    the
    (juvenil
    e)

    Cincinna   03/
    ti          95

    Clevelan          08/
    d                  97
    (juvenil
    e)

    Clevelan
    d
    (adult)

    Dayton     01/
    (adult)     96

    Dayton
    (juvenil
    e)

    Mansfiel
    d

    Saint
    Clairsvi
    lle
    (juvenil
    e)

    Sandusky   04/
                96

    Toledo

    Uhrichvi
    lle

    Youngsto
    wn

    Oklahoma

    Canadian
    County
    (juvenil
    e)\b

    Chickash
    a\b

    Claremor
    e

    Drumrigh          05/
    t                  97

    Elk City
    (juvenil
    e)

    Guthrie    03/
                95

    Muskogee

    Oklahoma
    City
    (adult)\
    b

    Oklahoma
    City
    (juvenil
    e)

    Okmulgee
    (Muscoge
    e
    Nation)

    Pontotoc          07/
    County\b           97

    Seminole          07/
                       97

    Stillwat   03/
    er          95
    (adult)

    Stillwat
    er
    (juvenil
    e)

    Tahlequa
    h

    Tulsa      05/
                96

    Oregon

    Eugene     09/
                94

    Grants     03/
    Pass        96

    Klamath    03/
    Falls       96

    McMinnvi
    lle\b

    Pendleto
    n
    (Confede
    rated
    Tribes
    of the
    Umatilla
    Indian
    Reservat
    ion)

    Portland   08/
                91

    Roseburg   01/
                96

    Pennsylv
    ania

    Philadel   03/
    phia        97

    Pittsbur
    gh\b

    Williams
    port

    York

    Puerto
    Rico

    Arecibo    04/
                96

    Carolina   04/
                96

    Ponce      04/
                96

    San Juan          08/
                       97

    South
    Carolina

    Charlest
    on
    (juvenil
    e)

    Columbia   11/
                96

    Lexingto   07/
    n           96

    Orangebu
    rg\b

    South
    Dakota

    Flandrea
    u
    (juvenil
    e/
    Sioux
    tribe)

    Lower
    Brule
    (Sioux
    tribe)

    Pine
    Ridge
    (Oglala
    Sioux
    tribe)

    Tennesse
    e

    Clarksvi
    lle

    Decaturv
    ille
    (juvenil
    e)

    Maryvill
    e

    Memphis\   02/
    b           97

    Nashvill          05/
    e                  97

    Texas

    Austin     08/
                93

    Beaumont   03/
                93

    Conroe

    Dallas            06/
                       97

    Fort       09/
    Worth       95

    Houston

    Utah

    Provo

    Salt       10/
    Lake        95
    City
    (juvenil
    e)

    Salt       07/
    Lake        96
    City
    (adult)

    Vernal

    Vermont

    Montpeli
    er

    Newport\
    b

    Virginia

    Charlott          07/
    esville            97

    Frederic
    ksburg

    Newport
    News

    Richmond
    (juvenil
    e)

    Roanoke    09/
                95

    Suffolk

    Washingt
    on

    Mount
    Vernon

    Olympia

    Port
    Angeles

    Port
    Orchard

    Seattle    08/
                94

    Spokane    01/
                96

    Tacoma     10/
                94

    Wisconsi
    n

    Madison    06/
                96

    Milwauke
    e

    Wyoming

    Gillette

    Sheridan

    ================================================================================
    Total                  161      32      112    10
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Drug court opened 12/95, closed 06/96.

    \b No specific information on funding available.

    \c Drug court opened 04/96, closed 11/96.

    \d Drug court program or jurisdictional official reported no specific
    drug court program funding.

    \e Drug court opened 05/89, closed 05/94.

    \f Drug court opened 02/95, closed 06/96.

    Sources:  GAO analysis of its survey of drug court programs and
    information obtained from federal agencies and the Drug Court
    Clearinghouse.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following is GAO's comment on DOJ's letter dated July 9, 1997.

       GAO COMMENT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

    1.  DOJ commented that this report does not distinguish between the
    OJP drug court discretionary grant program authorized by the Crime
    Act and the two BJA formula and block grant programs.  We have
    modified chapter 2 of our report to identify which grant programs are
    formula, block, or discretionary grant programs.  Since nearly 60
    percent of the federal support has been derived from federal grants
    other than those administered under the Violent Crime Act, and
    formula and block grant programs have contributed a significant
    portion (at least one-third) of the federal funds, we have chosen to
    include them in the scope of our recommendation intended to improve
    data collection and maintenance and the scope of future impact
    evaluations of drug court programs.  We have modified our
    recommendation to consider any statutory limitations.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following is GAO's comment on HHS' memorandum dated July 10,
    1997.

       GAO COMMENT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

    1.  In commenting, HHS referred to our next mandated annual report on
    treatment-based drug courts.  However, we were only mandated under
    Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act to do a one-time study of the
    impact and effectiveness of federal grants administered under this
    act.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
    COMMENTS FROM THE STATE JUSTICE
    INSTITUTE
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following are GAO's comments on SJI's letter dated July 7, 1997.

       GAO COMMENTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

    1.  SJI commented that the report should describe it as a "federally
    funded private organization." We have modified the report to reflect
    this comment.

    2.  SJI raised concerns with the presentation of SJI's level of
    funding in support of drug court program operations.  We have revised
    our graphic presentation of funding in chapter 2 to show SJI's
    percentage of the federal sources of funding and have further
    clarified that, with respect to drug court programs, SJI has provided
    grants primarily in support of evaluation studies of drug court
    programs.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
    COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT
    PROFESSIONALS
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IX
    COMMENTS FROM THE DRUG COURT
    CLEARINGHOUSE AND TECHNICAL
    ASSISTANCE PROJECT
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following are GAO's comments on the Drug Court Clearinghouse's
    memorandum dated July 8, 1997.

       GAO COMMENTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

    1.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse suggested that we include commentary
    in this report on the complexity and urgency of maintaining follow-up
    data on program participants.  In chapter 4 of this report, we
    provided information on the complexity of collecting and maintaining
    follow-up data on drug court program participants.  We also
    recognized the need on the part of the drug court community to work
    together to identify and take steps to collect and maintain such
    data.  In addition, we provided information on legal and regulatory
    restrictions associated with accessing confidential information,
    including a discussion of exceptions granted to researchers,
    auditors, and evaluators.

    2.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it was unaware of any
    drug courts that accept participants with current violent offense
    charges.  Information presented in chapter 3 of this report was
    derived directly from drug court program officials responding to our
    survey questionnaire, which in some cases included judges, program
    coordinators/directors, and/or court administrators.  The responses
    only indicate the programs' policies regarding accepting violent
    offenders and not the extent to which they actually have such
    participants, if any, in their programs.

    3.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it did not know of
    any drug courts that permit individuals to participate who do not
    have substance abuse problems.  We have corrected chapter 3 of this
    report to accurately reflect that 17 percent of the 134 drug court
    programs we surveyed said that they would admit offenders without a
    substance addiction.

    4.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it believed the level
    of funding contributions provided by HHS in support of drug court
    program operations to be lower than we presented.  Information
    presented in our report was derived directly from HHS' CSAT.

    5.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse suggested that this report be
    revised to distinguish between drug courts that received federal
    support and those that did not; and, of those drug courts that
    received federal support, those that received funding under the
    Violent Crime Act and those that received other federal funding.
    Because Violent Crime Act funded programs were just emerging and
    relatively few studies, if any, had been completed at the time of our
    review, we reached agreement with the Senate and House Judiciary
    Committees to expand the objectives and scope of this review to
    include an overview of growth, characteristics, and results of drug
    court programs, including assessing all sources of funding.

    6.  The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that Violent Crime Act
    funded drug court programs may be in a better position to more
    readily provide available data to support recidivism and sobriety
    goals than other programs because they have had the benefit of more
    systematic planning, training, and technical assistance.  As noted in
    chapter 4, the results from our survey showed no significant
    difference between the collection and maintenance of data for Violent
    Crime Act funded drug court programs and those receiving other
    sources of funding.  Additionally, as we point out in our conclusions
    presented in chapter 5, until post-program data on program
    participants outcomes (criminal recidivism and/or relapse) are made
    available for future impact evaluations, and/or until the scope of
    impact evaluations includes post-program assessments, program
    officials, researchers, and/or evaluators will not be able to
    adequately provide Congress and other interested parties with answers
    on the overall impact and effectiveness of drug court programs in
    comparison to other traditional adjudication systems.  Therefore, as
    we conclude and recommend in chapter 5 of this report, it is
    essential that follow-up information be collected and maintained not
    only for Violent Crime Act funded programs but all federally funded
    drug court programs, regardless of federal funding source.

    MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
    =========================================================== Appendix X

       GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
       WASHINGTON, D.C.
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix X:1

    Daniel C.  Harris, Assistant Director
    Charles Michael Johnson, Evaluator-in-Charge
    Barry J.  Seltser, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
    Douglas M.  Sloane, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
    David P.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
    Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
    Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst
    Thelma Jones, Writer-Editor
    George H.  Quinn, Computer Specialist
    Katherine M.  Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
    Jena Sinkfield, Administrative Assistant

       OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
       WASHINGTON, D.C.
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix X:2

    Jan B.  Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel
    Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney

    BIBLIOGRAPHY
    =========================================================== Appendix 1

       STUDIES USED IN GAO'S
       EVALUATION SYNTHESIS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 1:1

    Broward County Commission Auditor's Office.  "Draft of a Performance
    Review of the Drug Court Treatment Program." Feb.  17, 1995.

    Choices Unlimited Las Vegas.  "Clark County Drug Court 42 Month
    Summary." Apr.  1996.

    Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, et al.  "An Experimental Evaluation of
    Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa
    County, Arizona." (Draft) National Institute of Justice.  July 1996.

    Drug Courts in Los Angeles County:  Preliminary Data 1994-1996.
    Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, County of Los
    Angeles, and Los Angeles County Municipal Courts Planning and
    Research Unit.  Oct.  16, 1996.

    Goldkamp, John S.  and Doris Weiland.  "Assessing the Impact of Dade
    County's Felony Drug Court." (Final report) National Institute of
    Justice Research Report.  Aug.  1993.

    Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A.  Harmon.
    "Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Evaluation:  A Short-term
    Outcome Evaluation of Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Program."
    University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal
    Justice.  June 1996.

    Granfield, Robert and Cindy Eby.  "An Evaluation of the Denver Drug
    Court:  The Impact of a Treatment-Oriented Drug Offender System."
    University of Denver Department of Sociology.  Jan.  1997.

    Harrell, Adele and Shannon Cavanagh.  "Preliminary Results From the
    Evaluation of the D.C.  Superior Court Drug Intervention Program for
    Drug Felony Defendants." Urban Institute.  (Undated)

    Jameson, Robert and N.  Andrew Peterson.  Evaluation of the First
    Year of Operation of the Jackson County Drug Court.  Ewing Marion
    Kauffman Foundation.  Apr.  1995.

    Kelly, William R.  "The Travis County Drug Diversion Court:  A
    Preliminary Outcome Evaluation." Submitted to Travis County Pretrial
    Services.  Jan.  16, 1996.

    McNeece, C.  Aaron and Charles M.  Daly.  "An Evaluation of the
    Broward and Hillsborough Counties Drug Courts." Florida State
    University.  Dec.  1993.

    Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections.  "STOP:  Drug
    Diversion Program/Program Impacts and Evaluation." Apr.  1994.

    Oberg, John C.  "An Initial Evaluation and Analysis of the Ventura
    County Drug Court Program." (Draft) Apr.  1996.

    "Preliminary Assessment of the S.T.O.P.  Program of Court Supervised
    Treatment and Deferred Prosecution for Eligible Drug Case Defendants,
    Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon)." (Draft) American University
    Courts Technical Assistance Project.  Aug.  1994.

    Reed, Emily A.  SODAT-DELAWARE, INC.:  Drug Court Division Program
    Annual Report.  Apr.  1995.

    Roberts-Gray, Cindy.  "Process Evaluation IV:  SHORT's Treatment
    Component." (Draft) Travis County, Texas.  Apr.  1996.

    "Santa Clara County Courts Treatment Court Nine Month Progress Report
    (Sept.  11, 1995-June 11, 1996)." (Undated)

    Smith, Barbara, Robert C.  Davis, and Sharon R.  Goretsky.
    "Strategies for Courts to Cope With the Caseload Pressure of Drug
    Cases." (Draft) The American Bar Association, Criminal Justice
    Section.  Oct.  1991.

    Tauber, Jeffrey S.  "An Evaluation of Oakland Drug Court After Three
    Years, (Fast, Intensive, Report, Supervision and Treatment) FIRST."
    Presented to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals,
    Las Vegas.  Jan.  9, 1995.

    Terry, W.  Clinton, III.  "Broward County Drug Court:  A Preliminary
    Report." Nov.  1993.

    Terry, W.  Clinton, III.  "Felony and Misdemeanor Rearrests of the
    First Year Cohort of the Drug Court in Broward County, Florida."
    (Draft) Mar.  1996.

       STUDIES OF SEVERAL DRUG COURTS
       OR SUMMARY EVALUATIONS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 1:2

    Belenko, Steven.  "Comparative Models of Treatment Delivery in Drug
    Courts." New York City Criminal Justice Agency.  Mar.  1996.

    Belenko, Steven.  "Treatment-Oriented Drug Courts:  Issues and
    Challenges." New York City Criminal Justice Agency.  July 18, 1994.

    Belenko, Steven and Tamara Dumanovsky.  "Special Drug Courts." Bureau
    of Justice Assistance Program Brief.  Nov.  1993.

    Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy.  Low-Level Drug Offenders:
    Lessons From the Drug Courts.  Nov.  1994.

    Cavanagh, Suzanne and David Teasley.  Drug Courts:  An Overview.  CRS
    Report for Congress, 95-1155 GOV, Updated.  Washington, D.C.  Oct.
    4, 1996.

    Cavanagh, Suzanne and David Teasley.  Drug Courts:  An Overview.  CRS
    Report for Congress, 95-1155 GOV.  Washington, D.C.  Nov.  29, 1995.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  Drug Courts:  An Overview of Operational
    Characteristics and Implementation Issues.  Vol.  1.  BJA Drug Court
    Resource Center.  American University.  June 1995.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  Drug Courts:  1997 Overview of Operational
    Characteristics and Implementation Issues.  Volume One:  Preliminary
    Report.  Part One:  General Program Information.  OJP Drug Court
    Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project.  American University.
    Washington, D.C.  May 1997.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  Drug Courts:  1997 Overview of Operational
    Characteristics and Implementation Issues.  Part Six:  Drug Court
    Treatment Services.  OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
    Assistance Project:  American University.  Washington, D.C.  May
    1997.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  Drug Courts:  1997 Overview of Operational
    Characteristics and Implementation Issues, Preliminary Report.
    Executive Summary Report.  OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
    Assistance Project.  American University.  Washington, D.C.  May
    1997.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  "Expedited Drug Case Management." BJA Courts
    Bulletin.  July 1994.

    Cooper, Caroline S.  and Joseph A.  Trotter, Jr.  Drug Case
    Management and Treatment Intervention Strategies in the State and
    Local Courts.  Vol.  1 (Revised).  BJA/SSI Drug Case Management and
    Technical Assistance and Training Project.  American University.
    Oct.  1994.

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

    Jacoby, Joan E., Edward C.  Ratledge, and Heike P.  Gramckow.
    "Expedited Drug Case Management Programs:  Issues for Program
    Development." National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.  Oct.
    1992.

    Juvenile Drug Courts:  Preliminary Report.  Drug Court Clearinghouse
    and Technical Assistance Project.  American University.  Oct.  15,
    1996, and May 1, 1997.

    McColl, William D.  "Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court:  Theory
    and Practice in an Emerging Field." Maryland Law Review.  Vol.  55,
    No.  2.  1996.

    Prendergast, Michael L.  and Thomas H.  Maugh, II.  "Drug Courts:
    Diversion That Works." Judges Journal.  Vol.  34, No.  3.  Summer
    1995.

    Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience, Drug Court
    Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University,
    Oct.  15, 1996, and May 15, 1997.

    Tauber, Jeffrey S.  "Drug Courts:  A Judicial Manual." CJER Journal.
    Summer 1994.

    Terry, W.  Clinton, III.  "Dedicated Drug Treatment Courts:  A
    Collaborative Model of Justice for Local Government." (Draft) Aug.
    1996.

    Weitzman, Jamey H.  "Drug Courts:  A Manual for Planning and
    Implementation." The American Bar Association.  (Undated)

    What We Are Getting for Our Federal Drug Control Dollars?, Drug
    Strategies.  1995.

       OTHER STUDIES REVIEWED
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 1:3

    Bailey, Cheryl and Ellen Talley.  "Study of Drug Treatment Court."
    State of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
    Services, Division of Parole and Probation.  Feb.  29, 1996.

    Bureau of Justice Assistance.  Drug Night Courts:  The Cook County
    Experience.  Aug.  1994.

    Circuit Court, District Attorney and Public Defender Offices of
    Multnomah County.  "STOP (Sanction Treatment Opportunity Program)
    Multnomah Circuit Court Drug Program:  18 Months of Progress and
    Change (Aug.  1991-Jan.  1993)." Mar.  11, 1993.

    Cooper, Caroline.  "Multnomah County STOP Program Evaluation."
    Memorandum to various individuals.  American University Courts
    Technical Assistance Project.  July 5, 1994.

    Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Peter W.  Greenwood.  "Maricopa
    County's Drug Court:  An Innovative Program for First-time Drug
    Offenders on Probation." Justice System Journal.  Vol.  17, No.  1,
    pp.  99-115.  1994.

    Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Sam Torres.  A Process Evaluation of
    Los Angeles County Drug Courts.  Oct.  1996.

    Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Sam Torres.  "An Evaluation of LA
    County Drug Courts." (Undated)

    Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, Susan Turner, and Peter Greenwood.  "Drug
    Court or Probation?:  An Experimental Evaluation of Maricopa County's
    Drug Court." RAND.  June 1995.

    Doerner, John P., Edwin T.  Zimny, Jr., and Steven V.  Berson.  "Case
    Model & Operations Review, Second Judicial District, Denver Drug
    Court." Aug.  16, 1996.

    Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
    Department of Justice.  Defining Drug Courts:  The Key Components.
    Jan.  1997.

    Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
    Department of Justice.  Drug Court Grant Program Fiscal Year 1996:
    Program Guidelines and Application Kit.  (Undated)

    Finigan, Michael.  "Social Outcomes & Cost Savings of Drug & Alcohol
    Treatment in the State of Oregon." Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
    Programs, Oregon Department of Human Resources.  Feb.  1996.

    Finn, Peter and Andrea K.  Newlyn.  "Miami's `Drug Court':  A
    Different Approach." National Institute of Justice Program Focus.
    June 1993.

    Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Housing and
    Community Development, Bureau of Community Assistance.  "Drug
    Treatment Programs for Florida's Offenders Funded by the Drug Control
    and System Improvement Grant." Aug.  1994.

    Geis, Bill D.  and Marilyn J.  Powell.  "A Pilot Study to Determine
    Effects of Acupuncture on Psychiatric Symptoms and Craving Levels in
    a Drug Court Division Program:  Preliminary Findings." Central Kansas
    City Mental Health Services.  (Undated)

    Gish, George L.  "Managing Drug Cases and Monitoring the Jail
    Population." Wayne County Circuit Court and Detroit Recorder's Court.
    Aug.  3, 1990.

    Goldkamp, John S.  "Challenges for Research and Innovation:  When Is
    a Drug Court Not a Drug Court?" In Judicial Change and Drug Treatment
    Courts:  Case Studies in Innovation.  Sage Pub.:  Beverly Hills, CA.
    1997.

    Goldkamp, John S.  and Doris Weiland.  "Assessing the Impact of Dade
    County's Felony Drug Court." National Institute of Justice, Research
    in Brief.  Dec.  1993.

    Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A.  Harmon.  "A
    Short-term Outcome Evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment
    Court Program." Perspectives, pp.  33-38.  Winter 1997.

    Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A.  Harmon.  "A
    Short-term Outcome Evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment
    Court Program." (Draft) Jan.  1996.

    Harkaway, Cary.  "S.T.O.P.  Drug Diversion Program Impacts."
    Memorandum to the Executive Director of InAct, Inc.  Multnomah County
    Department of Community Corrections.  Mar.  3, 1994.

    Harrell, Adele.  "The Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior
    Drug Court Intervention Program." Urban Institute.  May 3, 1994.

    Harrell, Adele and Barbara Smith.  "Evaluation of the District of
    Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program:  Focus Group
    Interviews." Jan.  1996.

    Harrell, Adele and Shannon Cavanagh.  "Preliminary Results From the
    Evaluation of the DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program for
    Drug Felony Defendants." Presented at the National Institute of
    Justice Research in Progress Seminar.  Washington, D.C.  July 17,
    1996.

    Hepburn, John R., C.  Wayne Johnston, and Scott Rogers.  "Do Drugs:
    Do Time:  An Evaluation of the Maricopa County Demand Reduction
    Program." National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.  Oct.
    1994.

    Hooks, Susan Luck.  "Findings and Recommendations for Improving
    Communications Within McLeod Center's TASC Program and Drug Treatment
    Court." (Undated)

    Lehman, Jack and John Marr.  Assessment of the Operations and
    Treatment Services of the Nineteenth Judicial District Drug Court,
    East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  June 1996.

    Mahoney, Barry.  "Working Paper:  Drug Court Evaluations and Related
    Research." Prepared for the Drug Courts Office Program, Office of
    Justice Programs, U.S.  Department of Justice.  Mar.  1997.

    Manley, Stephen V.  and Lawrence F.  Terry.  Santa Clara County
    Courts Treatment Court:  Six Month Preliminary Report (September 11,
    1995-March 11, 1996).  May 1, 1996.

    Marcus, Stephen A.  Reflections of a Drug Court Judge - 1994.  Los
    Angeles Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District.  Feb.  15,
    1995.

    McDevitt, Jack, et al.  "The Boston Drug Diversion Court Eleven-Month
    Tabulation of Client Statistics." The Center for Criminal Justice
    Policy Research.  May 1996.

    McNeece, C.  Aaron and Joseph B.  Byers.  "A Follow-up Report on
    Hillsborough County Drug Court Program Clients." Florida Department
    of Community Affairs.  Dec.  1994.

    McNeece, C.  Aaron and Joseph B.  Byers.  "Hillsborough County Drug
    Court Two-Year (1995) Follow-up Study." Florida Department of
    Community Affairs.  Nov.  1995.

    Multnomah Courts.  "STOP Cases Diverted (Aug.  1991-Aug./Sept.  1994)
    From OJIN." Sept.  1994.

    Office of Expedited Drug Case Management, New Castle County Superior
    Court.  "EDCM - Expedited Drug Case Management - A Report:  A
    Progress Report on Delaware's Drug Court." (Undated)

    Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the
    President.  The National Drug Control Policy, 1997.  Feb.  1997.

    Office of the State Courts Administrator, Florida Supreme Court.
    Treatment-Based Drug Courts...a Guide.  (Undated)

    "Operational Summary of the Expedited Drug Case Management Program,
    Multnomah County, (Portland), Oregon." Bureau of Justice Assistance
    Expedited Drug Case Management (EDCM) Demonstration Project, American
    University.  (Undated)

    Peter D.  Hart Research Associates.  Drugs and Crime Across America:
    Police Chiefs Speak Out.  Conducted for Police Foundation and Drug
    Strategies.  1996.

    Peters, Roger H.  "Recommendations to Santa Clara County Drug
    Treatment Court Regarding the Design of an Information System and
    Evaluation Plan." Oct.  1996.

    Peterson, N.  Andrew.  Evaluation of the First Year of Operation of
    the Jackson County Drug Court.  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
    Dec.  1994.

    Roberts-Gray, Cindy.  "Evaluation of the Engagement Process for
    Travis County's SHORT Program." Travis County, Texas.  Sept.  1995.

    Roberts-Gray, Cindy.  "Process Evaluation II:  SHORT Program August
    1993-December 1994." (Draft) Travis County, Texas.  Mar.  1995.

    Roberts-Gray, Cindy.  "Process Evaluation:  SHORT Program 1993-1994."
    (Revision) Travis County, Texas.  Dec.  1994.

    Schiff, Mara and W.  Clinton Terry, III.  "Predicting Graduation From
    Broward County's Dedicated Drug Treatment Court Based Upon Individual
    Participant Characteristics." Oct.  1996.

    Smith, Barbara E., Robert C.  Davis, and Sharon Goretsky.  "An
    Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts:  Results From
    Data Collected in Cook County and From a National Survey." The
    American Bar Association.  May 3, 1992.

    Smith, Barbara E., et al.  "Drug Night Courts:  How Feasible Are
    They?  Assessing Cook County's Example." Bulletin Bureau of Justice
    Assistance.  Vol.  1, Issue 1.  July 1993.

    Smith, Linda G.  "An Evaluation of the 13th Judicial Circuit Drug
    Court and Drug Division Programs." (Undated)

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services.  Planning Chart for
    Treatment-Based Drug Courts.  (Undated)

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services.  Substance Abuse Treatment
    Planning Guide and Checklist for Treatment-Based Drug Courts.  1997.

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services.  The Role and Current Status
    of Patient Placement Criteria in the Treatment of Substance Use
    Disorders.  Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series #13.  1995.

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services.  Treatment Drug Courts:
    Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal Case Processing.
    Treatment Improvement Protocal (TIP) Series #23.  1996.

    Tapia, Frank.  "Summary of the FIRST Drug Diversion Program."
    Presented to the National Drug Court Conference.  Miami.  Dec.  1993.

    Tauber, Jeffrey S.  "The Importance of Immediate and Intensive
    Intervention in a Court-Ordered Drug Rehabilitation Program:  An
    Evaluation of the Oakland Drug Court After Two Years (Fast,
    Intensive, Report, Supervision and Treatment." Presented to the
    President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws.  Mar.  10, 1993.

    Terry, W.  Clinton, III.  "Repeat Offenses of the First Year Cohort
    of Broward County, Florida's Drug Court." Nov.  1995.

    Weitzman, Jamey H.  Drug Courts:  A Judge's Perspective.  District
    Court of Maryland for Baltimore City.  (Undated)

    Wells, Jennifer Dyer.  Florida's Drug Court:  It's Habit-Forming.
    Florida Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) Court
    Operations.  (Undated)

    Wilson, Deborah G.  "Jefferson County Drug Court Program Evaluation,
    1992-1995." University of Louisville Department of Justice
    Administration.  Nov.  1995.

    *** End of document. ***