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synthesis of existing published and unpublished evaluations or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. ***