Assessment of a Multiagency Approach to Drug-Involved Gang Members in San Diego County, California, 1988-1992

In 1988, with funds from the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1987, a multiagency task force,
Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement (JUDGE), was created.
Spearheaded by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and
representing a unique blend of police officers, probation officers,
and deputy district attorneys working together, the JUDGE program
targeted documented gang members also involved in drug use and
sales. The task force incorporated an intensive supervision approach
that enforced conditions of probation and drug laws and provided
vertical prosecution for probation violations and new offenses
involving targeted offenders. This research project sought to address
the following research objectives: (1) to determine if the JUDGE
program objectives were met during the grant period, (2) to assess the
results of program activities, such as surveillance, special
enforcement, and vertical prosecution, in terms of probation
violations, arrests, pretrial custody, probation revocations,
convictions, and sentences, (3) to evaluate the impact of the program
on offenders as measured by recidivism and the need for probation
intervention, (4) to assess the cost of JUDGE probation compared to
regular probation caseloads, and (5) to provide recommendations
regarding the implementation of similar programs in other
jurisdictions. This research project consisted of a process
evaluation and an impact assessment that focused on the first two
years of the JUDGE program, when youthful offenders were the targets
(1988 and 1989). The research effort focused only on new targets for
whom adequate records were maintained, yielding a study size of
279. The tracking period for targets ended in 1992. For the impact
assessment, the research was structured as a within-subjects design,
with the comparison focusing on target youths two years before the
implementation of JUDGE and the same group two years after being
targeted by JUDGE. Data were compiled on the juveniles' age at target,
race, sex, gang affiliation, type of target (gang member, drug
history, and/or ward), status when targeted, and referrals to other
agencies. Variables providing data on criminal histories include age
at first contact/arrest, instant offense and disposition, highest
charges for each subsequent arrest that resulted in probation
supervision, drug charges, highest conviction charges, probation
conditions before selection date and after JUDGE target, number of
contacts by probation and JUDGE staff, number of violations for each
probation condition and action taken, and new offenses during
probation. For the process evaluation, case outcome data were compared
to project objectives to measure compliance in terms of program
implementation and results. Variables include number of violations for
each probation condition and action taken, and number of failed drug
tests. The consequences of increased probation supervision, including
revocation, sentences, custody time, and use of vertical prosecution,
were addressed by comparing the processing of cases prior to the
implementation of JUDGE to case processing after JUDGE targeting.