Title: Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System: Findings and Results From State and Local Program Evaluations Effective programs Monograph No. 1.
Series: Monograph
Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Subject: Program Evaluations
56 pages
126,000 bytes 

Figures, charts, forms and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at
800-688-4252.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System: Findings and Results
From State and Local Program Evaluations

Effective Programs Monograph No. 1

-----------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

1-800-688-4252

Bureau of Justice Assistance 
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

------------------------

This document was prepared by Justice Research and Statistics
Association, under grant number 95-DD-BX-K011, awarded by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of
Justice.

------------------------

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

------------------------

Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System: Findings and Results
From State and Local Program Evaluations

Effective Programs Monograph No. 1

December 1997
NCJ 166821

------------------------

Foreword 

Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System is the central mission of
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Building safer, less violent
communities is a major challenge being faced by all States and local
communities. Real progress can be achieved only if we demonstrate and
confirm "what works," so we can all profit from the impact of over 10
years of Federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Law
Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program. As we approach the year
2000, our knowledge of effective programs will continue to be critical as
we solve one of the Nation's toughest problems.

Underlying our ability to gain reliable knowledge and disseminate
information of effective programs and activities is our commitment to
evaluating and publicizing those programs and activities as we implement
our plans and strategies. Evaluation done right permits program managers
to find out what is and is not working, and why. BJA carries the
responsibility of building the capacity of State and local governments to
design and conduct their own assessments and evaluations of the
effectiveness of criminal justice programs. BJA's handbooks and technical
assistance seek to create a systematic, disciplined framework focusing on
performance and results, both quantitative and qualitative, to be measured
and evaluated. This initiative also represents an area of close participation
with the National Institute of Justice to build Federal, State, and local
evaluation systems over the past decade.

BJA is pleased to present this monograph, Improving the Nation's
Criminal Justice System: Findings and Results from State and Local
Evaluation. It is the first in a series of reports to highlight and document
the approaches and results of evaluations funded at State and local levels.
The six programs that were the focus of the evaluations presented in the
monograph depict demonstration projects affecting many components of
the criminal justice system. Having been evaluated and identified as
effective programs, they become models for other States and localities to
replicate.

This monograph has been produced to make effective State and local
programs more accessible to planners and practitioners alike. Future
reports in the series will continue to communicate the results of the strong
Federal, State and local partnerships to enhance the role of evaluation,
build excellent evaluation systems, and disclose on the impact of efforts to
combat crime in America. BJA is proud of its work identifying effective
drug abuse and violent crime programs. Identifying such programs will
demonstrate which ones work most effectively and will communicate
lessons learned at the State and local levels that can be shared nationally to
ensure that the most promising approaches can have a broad impact.

Nancy E. Gist
Director
     
------------------------

Acknowledgments

This monograph on effective State and local program evaluations is a
product of a cooperative effort by the States and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance as part of the State Evaluation Development Program, which is
coordinated by the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA).

The State Evaluation Development Program relies on the expertise of the
State Planning Agencies to ensure the success of its publications. The
following State Planning Agencies contributed their knowledge and time
to make this monograph a success: California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning; Colorado Division of Criminal Justice; Florida Bureau of
Community Assistance; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority;
Iowa Governor's Alliance on Substance Abuse; and New York State
Division of Criminal Justice Services.

The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document
under the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. The JRSA staff
working on this publication, under the supervision of Deputy Director,
Kellie J. Dressler, were Marylinda Stawasz and Nancy Michel.

------------------------

Contents

State and Local Evaluations and the Effective Programs Initiative

California

Donovan Prison Therapeutic Community Program (Continuity of Care
Project) 

Colorado

Intensive Supervision Probation Program

Florida

Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Programs for Offenders 

Illinois

Gang Violence Reduction Project 

Iowa

Batterer's Education Program 

New York

Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program 

Appendix A

Identifying Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria
for the Nomination of Effective Programs 

Appendix B

Sources for Further Information 

------------------------

Chapter 1

State and Local Evaluations and the Effective Programs Initiative

The Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA's) evaluation strategy is designed
to determine the effectiveness and impact of BJA's grant programs. The
goal is to confirm whether performance objectives established by the
States are being achieved and, if they are, what critical elements were
responsible for success. Hence, the overall goal of the evaluation program
is to identify programs of proven effectiveness so that they can be
publicized and replicated in other jurisdictions. By building strong
assessment and evaluation foundations in the 56 States and territories, BJA
can account for the efforts of programs funded by its grants and add to
comprehensive knowledge of what works and does not work throughout
the criminal justice system.

BJA's dependence on data and the results of research and evaluation
underlies both program development under the discretionary program and
BJA's ability to provide guidance and model programs under the formula
and block grant programs. BJA relies on evaluation results to guide the
formulation of policy and programs within Federal, State, and local
criminal justice agencies and to ensure that policies and funded programs
are based on proven results. The required State annual reports are useful in
working toward this goal, but BJA intends to go further to capture both
quantitative and qualitative measures of program performance.

As part of a continuing effort to provide the criminal justice community
with improved access to information on successful programs dealing with
problems of drug abuse and/or violent crime, BJA is publishing this first
volume of Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System: Findings and
Results From State and Local Program Evaluations. The evaluations, as
well as the programs being evaluated, reflect the results of program
development and implementation activities funded under BJA's Formula
Grant Program to State and local governments and organizations.

Lessons learned at the State and local levels can be shared nationally to
ensure that the most promising approaches can have a broad impact. In
addition to wanting to know about successful initiatives, justice system
planners and managers need to understand the scope and level of effort
required for innovative approaches. Readers of this report will observe that
the state and local agencies are actively funding, implementing, and
evaluating a broad range of programs to deal with drug abuse and violent
crime. 

Effective Programs Initiative

Enhancing State and local assessment and evaluation capabilities is a very
high priority. The success of the Federal, State, and local partnership
yielded many results within the States. This national initiative is designed
to develop and/or enhance drug control and system improvement strategy
performance monitoring, measurement, and evaluation capacities in the
States and territories.

BJA believes that setting standards for evaluation will have major benefits,
while better informing the public about how Federal dollars were spent.
Evaluation requires the institutionalization of new partnerships among
funding agencies, program managers, and evaluators. No longer the sole
domain of academic researchers, evaluation is making real differences in
the ability of the criminal justice community to base policy and decisions
on accurate and useful information. This is the result of the strong
relationships formed between evaluators and practitioners.

BJA has begun this new initiative to enhance State and local evaluation
capacity building directly supporting evaluation activities, as well as the
utilization of outcome results. The program creates a mechanism for
enhancing the design, implementation, measurement, evaluation, and
dissemination of information on programs in high-priority program areas.
BJA has created this initiative to respond to the Attorney General's charge
to "find out what works and spread the word."

The objectives of the Effective Programs Initiative are to:

o Enhance the ability of State and local agencies to generate and use
evaluation results for strategy development, program improvement, and
effective program identification.

o Identify and document useful approaches for designing and conducting
evaluations at State and local levels.

BJA needs to identify effective State and local criminal justice programs,
practices, and products as part of broader efforts at the national level to
improve the criminal justice system by disseminating useful program
information to policymakers and practitioners. Through this approach,
which might be called "leading by example," information on successful
programs will be disseminated to the field in a credible and timely fashion.
The results from the 56 laboratories (States and territories) put in place
under the Byrne Formula Grant Program are the products of this initiative.

Program effectiveness guidelines and criteria presented in Identifying
Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria for the
Nomination of Effective Programs (see Appendix A) are available for use
in submitting potential programs. Once the effective programs have been
approved, additional BJA monographs and bulletins will be published.

Identifying and promoting sound programs is essential to developing
effective strategies at Federal, State, and local levels. BJA wants to
enhance the criminal justice system in general, while recognizing the
many exceptional State and local advances in combating violent crime and
drug abuse through the use of Federal funds that are based on sound
programming. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is an active participant in BJA's
evaluation program. BJA and NIJ jointly develop evaluation guidelines
and conduct comprehensive evaluations of selected programs receiving
Byrne discretionary and formula grant funds. BJA worked closely with
NIJ to develop the guidelines and criteria for documenting the six program
evaluations presented in this monograph.

The overall effectiveness of Federal funding is best reached through a
program development model that tests innovative State and local ideas in
action and then shares the information gained with the broadest audience.
Promising steps have been taken, and much has been learned at the State
and local levels regarding what works and what does not work.

------------------------

Chapter 2

CALIFORNIA

Donovan Prison Therapeutic Community Program (Continuity of Care
Project)

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by Harry
K. Wexler, Ph.D., Senior Principal Investigator, National Development &
Research Institutes, Inc., and Lois Lowe, Ph.D., Office of Substance
Abuse Programs, California Department of Corrections.

The Continuity of Care Project, which was established using Byrne grant
funds, with the assistance of the California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning, enables graduates of institutional treatment to continue intensive
substance abuse treatment, while on parole, in a community setting in
Vista, California.

Program Overview

In 1989, following increasing evidence that substance abuse is a driving
factor in both prison overcrowding and parole revocation, the California
Department of Corrections (CDC) formed the Office of Substance Abuse
Programs (OSAP). In 1990, OSAP, in partnership with Amity, Inc., a
nationally recognized community-based treatment organization, initiated
California's first intensive substance abuse treatment program at the R.J.
Donovan Correctional Facility near San Diego. The treatment program
that was developed allows selected drug-abusing, medium-security
inmates to serve their last year of incarceration in a therapeutic community
(TC) setting. The 200 inmates assigned to the project participate in group
meetings, seminars, group and individual counseling, video feedback,
relapse prevention, and urine testing. Preparole planning is also provided
to assist inmates in returning to the community.

Upon successful completion of the in-prison program, a limited number of
inmates paroled to San Diego County are able to enter the community
residential facility in Vista, California. This facility initially offered 6 beds
but quickly expanded to 40; full treatment services are available; and
participants may stay until they are ready to make the transition to
independent living, up to 1 year. The average stay is 5.3 months. 

The TC at R.J. Donovan is housed in a unit isolated from the general
population, but participants are integrated with other prisoners for certain
activities. Seminars, ancillary groups, and workshops are provided for
family, friends, and other parolees.

Goals and Objectives

Established with the assistance of the California Office of Criminal Justice
Planning in 1991, the Continuity of Care Project enables institutional
treatment graduates to continue intensive substance abuse treatment in a
community setting in Vista, California, while on parole. 

The goals of the Continuity of Care Project are to provide substance abuse
treatment services for offenders graduating from the in-prison component,
to provide preparole planning for the in-prison participants to enhance the
likelihood of success on parole, and to assure continued community safety.

The objectives to achieve these goals are to:

o Provide ancillary groups, workshops, or seminars at the facility for a
minimum of 400 nontransition parolees, family members, and friends. 

o Graduate at least 190 inmates, 70 of whom will enter the transition
facility for an average of 120 days.

o Complete transition plans for in-prison participants.

o Provide contacts and conduct preparole interviews.

o Provide supervision by the project's parole agent staff, which will
administer urine tests, conduct initial interviews, and make case contacts
at the facility.

o Monitor the number of incidents requiring an activity report, positive
urine samples and types of drugs detected, participants returned to
custody, successful parole discharges, hours of community service donated
by participants, and participants employed. 

Program Activities/Components

The Continuity of Care Project includes three distinct program areas:
preparole transition planning, substance abuse treatment services, and
parole supervision.

Preparole Transition Planning. At the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility,
contracted treatment personnel assess inmates and develop program plans.
The transition plan identifies individuals' specific shortcomings and
establishes goals that must be achieved for successful parole. A transition
plan may include residential treatment; outpatient treatment; participation
in outreach groups or seminars and in Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous programs; and monitoring of the parolee's
relationships with past associates.

Involving the project's parole agent is critical to preparole planning. Often
this agent is the offender's only positive parole contact. Clearly
establishing the offender's responsibility regarding parole supervision
offers the offender the maximum opportunity for successful reintegration;
coordinating and integrating parole supervision and treatment creates a
considerable force to motivate the offender and reinforce positive
behavior.

Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Project treatment components
offered at the continuation facility are consistent with those in the
institution and include individual counseling, ongoing assessment, group
counseling, psychodrama, problem-solving skills development, self-
examination, and educational seminars. These activities are supplemented
with regular workshops in substance abuse education, relationships,
recreation, nutrition, support networks, family dynamics, personal
chronologies, and communication skills. All the activities are intended to
provide participants with the skills necessary for successful adjustment. 

Parole Supervision. The parole agent assigned to the project as a liaison,
with treatment and custody staff at the institution, provides ongoing
contact with other community programs and communicates with the
County Alcohol and Drug Administration staff to facilitate long-term
parole planning. The parole agent works closely with the continuance
facility staff and its residents while monitoring urine tests and obtaining
collateral information to validate the progress of offenders through the
program. The parole agent also monitors offenders' behavior in the
community to ensure public safety.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

A. The National Development & Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI)
completed a study entitled "Return to Custody Follow-up of Participants
Paroling and in Treatment, November 1991-February 1996." The purpose
of the study was to answer the following questions:

o What percentage of community residential program participants returned
to State prison custody following community treatment at 12 and 24
months postparole? Is there a difference in returns by program completion
status, completed versus dropout?

o What is the average number of days program participants were on parole
prior to a first return to custody?

o What is the average number of days participants were in prison for a first
return?

o What was the reason for a first return to State prison?

Study subjects were identified and classified as to community residential
program completion status by the community residential program director.
Personal characteristics and movement transactions of the participants
were abstracted from CDC's computerized database, the Offender Based
Information System. The data included these variables: length of time on
parole, return-to-custody status, days back in custody, and days to first
return to custody. No participants were contacted. The information was
then entered into a computerized database for analysis using statistical
software. 

The data were analyzed in terms of community residential program
completion status, completed (remained in an Amity community
residential facility 90 days or longer) versus dropout (did not remain in
community treatment 90 days), and length of time on parole, 12 and 24
months postparole. Study participants consisted of all Donovan Prison
program completers who were paroled into San Diego County and entered
an Amity community residential facility from November 1991 through
February 1996, and were on parole 12 months or longer. Of these, 126
were on parole at least 24 months. The number of persons not
returned/returned after 12 months was 142 and 46, respectively. At 12
months, the age range of the participants was 21 to 67 years, the average
age was 35.5 years, the number not returned to custody was 36.0, and the
average age of the participants who were returned in 12 months was 33.9.
The race/ethnicity was Caucasian, 50.5 percent; African-American, 27.7
percent; Hispanic/Latino, 20.2 percent; and other, 1.6 percent. The
percentages of not returned and returned by race/ethnicity were Caucasian,
50.7 percent/50.0 percent; African-American, 30.3 percent/19.6 percent;
Hispanic/Latino, 16.9 percent/30.4 percent; and other, 2.1 percent/0.0
percent.

Analysis of variance was used to determine whether continuous variables
(days returned to custody, days to first return, age) were statistically
equivalent for the completed and dropout groups. The nonparametric chi-
square test was used to compare the categorical frequency data. 

B. NDRI, under a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
conducted a comprehensive followup study on a random sample of in-
prison treatment participants, in-prison plus community treatment
participants, program dropouts, and nontreatment (control) subjects. The
focus of the study included:

o Profiles--to describe the profiles of prison inmates with histories of
substance abuse in terms of background, level of functioning, social and
psychological adjustment, criminality, and substance abuse.

o Effectiveness--to evaluate, in terms of both process and outcome, the
effectiveness of a modified prison-based TC for inmates with histories of
substance abuse.

o Effectiveness--to assess the incremental value of extending the TC
experience from prison into the community.

The total sample, randomly selected, was 715 persons categorized as
follows: controls, 290; prison TC dropouts, 95; prison TC completers,
193; aftercare TC dropouts, 45; and aftercare completers, 92. Data
collection was effected at intake, 6 and 12 months into treatment, and 12
months posttreatment. Instruments included a Baseline Interview Protocol,
which provided personal history and background information; the
Tennessee Self Concept, Beck Depression Inventory, etc., which indicated
psychological status; a Diagnostic Interview Survey, which indicated
psychiatric status; the TC Clinical Progress Scale, the Correctional
Institutional Environment Scale, etc., which provided insight into client
perceptions and progress; and a review of criminal justice histories.

Characteristics of the study population were as follows:

o The random selection procedure was successful because few differences
were found between the treatment and nontreatment groups.

o Average age was 31, and the population was racially balanced.

o Psychiatric diagnoses included 51 percent antisocial personality, 33
percent attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and 17 percent
depression/dysthymia.

o The men were primarily stimulant, intravenous (IV) users.

o Of the participants who were at high risk for HIV, 58 percent were IV
users, 63 percent injected with dirty needles, 25 percent shared needles
with strangers, and 97 percent practiced sex.

o Of the study population, 75 percent committed violent crimes, such as
assault, kidnaping, rape, and murder.

C. Amity, Inc., has contracted with Lois Lowe, Ph.D., OSAP, CDC, to do
a process evaluation of the entire Donovan Prison TC program.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

A. NDRI: "Return to Custody Follow-up of Participants Paroling and in
Treatment, November 1991-February 1996."

12 Months Postparole (N=188). Of the 132 participants who completed
treatment, 22 (16.7 percent) had been returned to State prison custody 1 or
more days. In contrast, 24 (42.9 percent) of the 56 participants in the
dropout group were returned. The difference in the return rates between
the two groups is statistically significant.

The average number of days on parole prior to a first return to custody was
236.3 days for the completed and 210.9 days for the dropout group. The
difference in days between the two groups is not statistically significant.

The average number of days in custody following a first return was
calculated for both groups. The average for the completed group was 86.0
compared to 106.2 days for the dropout group. The difference in days
between the two groups is not statistically significant.

24 Months Postparole (N=126). Of the 87 participants in the completed
group, 27.6 percent had been returned to custody. The return rate for the
39 participants in the dropout group was twice as high--61.5 percent. The
difference between the two groups is statistically significant.

The average number of days on parole prior to a first return to custody was
363.7 days for the completed and 324.5 days for the dropout group. The
difference in days between the two groups is not statistically significant.

The average number of days in custody following a first return was
calculated for both groups. The average for the completed group was
279.8 days, compared to 263.9 days for the dropout Group. The difference
in days between the two groups is not statistically significant.

Reason for First Return to Custody. This variable is of interest to
correctional management because the more serious the reason for return,
the longer the inmate will remain in prison custody. The current average
cost (July 1996) to house an inmate in prison for a year is $21,631,
whereas the annual average cost to supervise a parolee within the
community is $2,100.

In no instance studied were the differences between the two groups 
statistically significant.

B. The NDRI comprehensive study has been completed, but the results
have not yet been released. However, some outcome findings were
presented in November 1996.

Reincarceration. The prison TC was effective in reducing reincarceration
rates 12 and 24 months after release for completers. The cumulative
effects of the prison TC and community aftercare TC were greater than the
effects of the prison TC alone in reducing reincarceration rates at 12 and
24 months after release.

Twelve months after release, 40 percent of the prison TC completers were
reincarcerated, and 7 percent of those who completed prison TC and
community aftercare were reincarcerated. Almost 50 percent of the control
subjects were reincarcerated after 12 months.

Of those completing the prison TC, 53 percent were reincarcerated 24
months after release, and of those who completed the prison TC and the
community aftercare, 16 percent were reincarcerated 24 months after
release. Sixty-five percent of the control subjects were reincarcerated 24
months after release.

Time Until Reincarceration. A significant positive relationship was found
between the amount of treatment and "time until reincarceration" at 12 and
24 months after release from prison.

Comparison of Donovan Prison TC and Other Studies. The recidivism
results are similar to the results of evaluation studies of prison and
aftercare TCs in Delaware and Texas, but the participants in this program
had more severe criminal backgrounds than those in the other programs.

The next analytical steps include determining the impact of treatment on
other outcomes, such as HIV risk behaviors and social functioning, inmate
characteristics related to success and failure, and the relationship of
treatment and cost avoidance.

C. The preliminary working group met in April 1997. No results are
available at this time.

------------------------

Chapter 3

COLORADO

Intensive Supervision Probation Program

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by Kim
English, Susan M. Chadwick, and Suzanne K. Pullen of the Office of
Research and Statistics, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice.

The Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) has received financial support
from Byrne grant funds. Receipt of these funds by the State is
accompanied by a mandate to evaluate the impact of local projects
supported by the grants.

Program Overview

ISP was designed as an intermediate sanction intended to divert prison-
bound offenders away from prison and into a community alternative. ISP
began in the mid-1980s in Colorado. This program emphasizes close
monitoring and clearly defined treatment plans for offenders. ISP is a
modified version of probation, with smaller caseloads and more stringent
program requirements, including frequent monitoring (both scheduled and
random) and mandatory treatment participation for specific needs. 

Goals and Objectives

The goal of ISP is to divert prison-bound offenders away from prison and
into a community alternative while maintaining public safety. The
objectives of ISP are to provide close monitoring of clients and to develop
clearly defined treatment plans for offenders.

Program Activities/Components

Typical components of ISP include the following:

o A minimum of two scheduled contacts per week with an ISP officer.

o Random contacts with an ISP officer.

o Prohibition of drug and alcohol use.

o Participation in treatment, as necessary.

o Payments of $20 in supervision fees each month.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

This evaluation was conducted to answer the following three questions:

o Does ISP divert offenders from prison?

o Does ISP protect the public?

o What are the successful treatment/surveillance components of ISP?

To analyze these issues, ISP offenders were compared with probationers,
community corrections clients, and prisoners. 

For the question about offender diversion, sentencing decisions from nine
Colorado judicial districts contained in the Division of Criminal Justice's
(DCJ) annually collected court data file were analyzed. The sampling unit
was cases reaching disposition in 1990. The sample comprised 100 percent
of offenders sentenced to prison and community corrections and 50
percent of offenders sentenced to probation, including sentences to ISP.

To answer the questions about protecting the public and successful
treatment/surveillance components of ISP, data were obtained from three
sources: the State Judicial Branch's ISP database, DCJ's 1990 court
database, and the database of all offenders terminated from diversion
community corrections in FY 1990-91, maintained by DCJ's Office of
Community Corrections. For all samples, cases whose sentences were
terminated by June 30, 1991, were selected to allow for a 12-month
followup. To avoid sampling and generalization problems, the samples
were stratified by conviction offense: theft, burglary, drug offense, assault,
sexual assault, and robbery. Because ISP was the smallest study group, in
order to have comparable sample sizes, the number of cases in ISP that
met the sampling criteria set the sample size for the other two study
groups. In ISP, 263 cases met the sampling criteria. For probation and
community corrections, the stratified samples were reduced by
computerized random sampling.

Additionally, to answer the public safety question, each offender was
tracked for 12 months following program completion. Arrest data
maintained by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation were used to
determine whether an offender was arrested in Colorado for a new
misdemeanor or a felony during this 12-month period. Arrest for either a
new crime (misdemeanor or felony) or a technical violation served as the
measure of public safety. For each offender, data on all arrests during the
12-month period were collected, and the most serious arrest was coded as
the outcome variable.

Does ISP Divert Offenders From Prison? To answer this question, the
characteristics of probationers, ISP clients, and prisoners were compared.
If ISP participants are prison-bound offenders, as planned by the General
Assembly, then ISP offenders and prisoners should look similar on the
profile analysis. Current offense, demographics, criminal history, and the
various needs that are present among these offenders were examined.

Does ISP Protect the Public? The evaluation compared program
completion rates of offenders in three community placements: probation,
ISP, and community corrections. On the factors studied, the profiles of ISP
and community corrections offenders did not differ statistically from each
other; however, these two groups were quite different from probation
clients. Factors examined included gender, mean age, education (last grade
completed), employment at arrest, offender needs (mental health
treatment, alcohol treatment, drug treatment, financial counseling),
criminal history score, and mean age at first arrest. In addition, two
measures were used to answer the question of how safe the public is: (1)
program termination and, for those who terminated the program
successfully, (2) rearrest during the 12 months following program
termination. 

What Are the Successful Treatment/Surveillance Components of ISP? To
determine the components of ISP that might relate to successful program
completion, the evaluation analyzed the following factors:

o Psychological counseling.

o Alcohol abuse counseling.

o Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings.

o Substance abuse educational sessions.

o Vocational training.

o Drug and alcohol detection tests.

o Electronic monitoring.

o Employment.

o Frequency and type of contacts by an ISP officer.

o Risk/needs of the offender.

o Type of current offense.

o Length of stay in ISP.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

Does ISP Divert the Offender? Based on criminal history, the ISP program
in Colorado appears to be diverting offenders who would otherwise be
prison bound. Differences in the criminal history profiles of offenders
placed on ISP and those sentenced to probation were clearly illustrated in
the analysis of the data. All criminal history factors (except age at first
arrest) rated lower for probationers compared with ISP clients. A number
of similarities exist between offenders sentenced to community corrections
and those sentenced to ISP. This is somewhat expected because
community corrections is also designed to divert offenders from prison. Of
particular interest is the similarity of ISP and community corrections
offenders with prior adult arrests for both violent and nonviolent offenses.
The ISP sample actually had a slightly higher ratio of offenders with a
history of adult violent and nonviolent arrests compared to the community
corrections sample, but the difference is not statistically significant. An
important distinction between ISP clients and offenders in prison,
however, is that the prisoners had, on average, only one more arrest on
their rap sheet than offenders who were placed on ISP. It might be inferred
then, that ISP offenders are "one arrest away" from prison.

Given that the profile of probationers clearly looks different than the
profiles of ISP clients, community corrections clients, and prisoners, it
appears that ISP is, on average, not widening the probation net, but is
providing a placement alternative for would-be prison-bound offenders.

How Safe Is the Public? Probation had the highest proportion of normal
program completions (68.5 percent), compared with community
corrections (43 percent) and ISP (46.5 percent). Conversely, probationers
had the highest failure rate for the commission of new crimes (10.8
percent), ISP was next (7.5 percent), and community corrections had the
lowest rate (3.4 percent). While offender behavior may vary by virtue of
program selection procedures, it also seems probable that the closer
offenders are supervised, the more likely officers are to catch clients
violating program rules. Thus, in programs with contact standards that are
more stringent than traditional probation (e.g., residential community
corrections and ISP), an offender is more likely to be caught breaking the
rules before he is caught breaking the law. Conversely, on probation,
where surveillance is less stringent, an offender has a greater opportunity
not only to break the rules, but also to commit new crimes. Empirical
findings underscore the differences: Terminations due to technical
violations are nearly 2 1/2 times greater in ISP and three times greater in
community corrections than they are on probation (45.5 percent, 46.7
percent, and 16.9 percent, respectively).

The three community sanctions studied in this evaluation appear to
provide a reasonable degree of safety to the community. The probation
group, despite a sample designed to minimize variation among the study
groups, consisted of considerably fewer serious offenders compared with
those placed in ISP and community corrections and would logically
warrant fewer supervision resources. This explained the relatively low cost
of $2.36 per day, per offender. However, just over 10 percent of the
probation group committed a new crime while on probation. Nearly 8
percent of the ISP clients (at a cost of $6.07 per day) reoffended with a
new crime, and community corrections--the most restrictive and expensive
($33.33 per day) of the programs studied--logged a new crime rate of less
than 4 percent.

Within 12 months of release, 99.3 percent of the former probationers were
not rearrested; 91.3 percent of the prior ISP clients did not lapse into
recidivism; and 77.6 percent of the "graduated" community corrections
clients remained arrest free. While community corrections clients did
significantly less well than the probation groups, it is nevertheless
important to compare the recidivism rate of these three community
programs with the success rate of the overall prisoner population.
According to Department of Corrections data, 60 percent of the entire
group of parolees remained arrest free during the first 3 years of parole or
discharge. Comparing the three groups for violent felony arrests, of those
offenders released from probation and ISP, none were arrested for violent
felonies in the 12 months after successful release from prison.

What Program Components Relate to Completion? Two important
resources--officer contact and sentence duration--did not affect overall
success rates in this study. Three program components statistically
improved an offender's probability of successfully completing ISP: full-
time employment, individual and/or group counseling, and participation in
AA. Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of offenders who held a full-time
job while participating in ISP completed the program without a revocable
incident. This is in considerable contrast to the 28.6 percent of
unemployed clients who successfully completed ISP. Further, fewer than
half (46 percent) of offenders who worked part time or sporadically
completed ISP successfully.

Offenders who participated in individual and/or group psychological
counseling were significantly more likely to succeed in ISP. Of the
offenders who received individual counseling, 70 percent went on to
successfully complete ISP. This compares with 30 percent for those who
did not complete the ISP program. Additionally, for those who received
group counseling, nearly 68 percent completed the program, compared
with 32.6 percent who failed to successfully complete the program.

For this study group, participation in AA meetings significantly increased
an offender's probability of successfully completing ISP. A significantly
higher proportion of ISP clients who attended AA (73.4 percent)
succeeded in ISP, compared with 26.1 percent of offenders who failed to
complete the ISP program.

This evaluation of the Colorado ISP program recognizes that it is
statistically impossible to separate the effect of the continuity-of-care (ISP
clients' progress to regular probation) component from any ISP program-
ming factor. Analyzing the impact of continuity of care would require an
experimental research design in which half of a matched sample received
ISP in its current form and the other half received ISP with no probation
followup. Any findings reported here must be considered in the context of
the continuity-of-care provisions. It is possible, for example, that the 
progression from very strict monitoring and programming to regular 
probation--a fairly unobtrusive sanction--is the driving factor for program
success and 12-month outcome success. Experimental designs are very
costly and very difficult to implement in a real-life setting such as
probation.[1]

------------------------


Chapter 4 

FLORIDA 

Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Programs for Offenders

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by C.
Aaron McNeece, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, and Charles M. Daly,
Ph.D., Project Manager of the Florida State University, Institute for Health
and Human Services Research. 

Byrne grant funds, administered by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), are distributed annually, on an equity basis, to local units
of government, which then decide how to best use these funds to address
substance-abuse-related criminal activities in their communities. 

Program Overview

The Drug Control and System Improvement (DCSI) formula grant funds
are administered by the Florida DCA. Funding is distributed annually, on
an equity basis, to local units of government that then decide how best to
use these funds to address substance-abuse-related criminal activities in
their communities. Many of the local units recognize the importance of
including substance abuse prevention and treatment programs for
offenders as part of their overall strategy to reduce drug-related crime.

In 1992, the Florida State University (FSU) Institute for Health and
Human Services Research entered into a contract with DCA to conduct an
evaluation of 15 local substance abuse prevention and treatment projects
funded through DCA. The projects were located in five counties and one
city throughout the State.

Goals and Objectives

The goal is to break the cycle of drug use and related crime by reducing
the demand for drugs. The objectives of the program are:

o To retrain the offender's physical and psychological needs through
treatment services.

o To substitute viable academic and vocational skills that offset the
financial incentives for drug involvement.

A composite definition of the ideal client outcome is an adult offender
who successfully completes the program and acquires living skills to
enable him or her to become a productive member of society and to
remain out of the criminal justice system.

Program Activities/Components

The DCSI grant is administered by DCA. DCA staff:

o Conduct fiscal and program monitoring of all grant-funded projects, at
least annually, using an automated grants processing, monitoring, and
management information system (GPMMIS), which tracks program
expenditures and performance.

o Require subgrantees to submit quarterly, annual, and final program
performance reports. Data from these reports are entered into GPMMIS to
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of services.

o Direct subgrantees to submit and receive approval on numerous fiscal
documents such as budgets, claims for reimbursement, budget
amendments, etc. These reports are also entered into GPMMIS for
tracking.

o Contract with FSU to evaluate selected purpose areas.

Subgrantees are awarded funds on a formula basis that takes into account
the county's size and problems with substance abuse. At least 51 percent of
the units of government within the county, representing at least 51 percent
of the county's population, must sign off on a project to receive funds.
This approach, unique to Florida, has resulted in programs that are based
more on community and social services and medical treatment than on law
enforcement.

Treatment and rehabilitation services are furnished either by the State or
by local providers to drug offenders who are incarcerated, on probation, or
in pretrial status. The settings in which the services are delivered vary, but
are primarily prisons, jails, or in the community. In spite of differences,
treatment programs are standardized in Florida. They are licensed by the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) and must
comply with minimum State standards. Services available are defined and
codified in the Florida Administrative Code. 

GPMMIS offers local-level project managers the ability to make program
adjustments to meet their performance objectives, because current
performance on objectives is instantly available to them. Continuing
education efforts by DCA are convincing more project managers to
develop and use performance-based objectives.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods 

FSU and DCA have organized the data differently. FSU categorizes
offenders into the type of program service in some instances or the type of
offender status in others, and divides the population into adults and
juveniles. The DCA database aggregates offenders of all ages and
separates results by provider/venue.

DCA staff established uniform objectives to measure program activities
for each purpose area. Within the treatment and rehabilitation purpose
area, these objectives vary by treatment modality, but generally, they
measure the number of offenders receiving a specific set of services, such
as intake and screening, diagnostic services, case management, or short-
term counseling. Project staff establish the level of performance they
expect to achieve and communicate this expectation to DCA when
applying for grant funds. The services provided most frequently are
procedural (intake/screening, case management, tracking, and court
liaison). This service array matches the program definition for successful
completion of treatment/rehabilitation: completion of the steps outlined in
an individualized treatment plan (as opposed to assessing long-term
followup data).

Fifteen treatment programs were evaluated by FSU under a contract with
DCA. The programs were located in Broward, Escambia, Indian River,
Polk, and Seminole Counties and the City of Hollywood. While these
programs are not new or different from a program design standpoint, they
are unique in emphasizing the importance of substance abuse prevention
and treatment as part of broad local antidrug strategies.

An essentially descriptive evaluation methodology was prepared by the
evaluation team and adapted to the unique characteristics of each program.
New data were collected and analyzed when possible; existing data were
evaluated; and project staff and community stakeholders were interviewed
for their perceptions of program strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation
framework provided for the review of five basic aspects of program
performance:

o Program Design: The evaluation explored the initial and ongoing
soundness of each program's design. Special emphasis was placed on
assessing the ability of program managers and staff to adapt to changing
needs and circumstances in a timely and efficient manner.

o Program Management: The evaluation assessed the strengths and
weaknesses of each program's organizational structure, procedures, and
oversight, as well as its integration into larger substance abuse treatment
and human services delivery systems.

o Service Area Coverage Accountability: This section investigated how
well each program was reaching its target population and geographical
service area. 

o Service Delivery Accountability: The volume and types of services
actually delivered by each program were compared with the level of
service delivery originally projected in the grant proposal.

o Program Outcomes: This was the most important and most difficult
component of the evaluation. Within the limitations of this evaluation post
hoc design, the team attempted to identify and measure reasonable
indicators of the impact of the program on compliance with treatment and
the future behavior of target populations.

As an additional criterion, the evaluation team examined adult and
juvenile posttreatment arrest histories. This analysis was based on the
assumption that while a low posttreatment arrest rate could not be
conclusively attributed to the effects of participation in the program, it
could provide one important indication of movement toward the major
goal of reducing offender recidivism. The evaluation methodology called
for obtaining arrest histories on a representative sample of clients served
by each project. Arrest histories were compiled for the period beginning 2
years prior to beginning treatment and extending up to 2 years after exiting
treatment. Adult arrest histories were obtained through the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and juvenile arrest data from the
DHRS database. In theory, if treatment makes a difference, offenders
exposed to education and/or treatment should have less posttreatment
involvement with the juvenile or criminal justice system than the
substance-involved offender population as a whole. 

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

In instances in which the findings appeared critical of program efforts,
adjustments were offered with the intention of effecting improvements in
the delivery of services and enhancing success rates. It was suggested that
some project managers rethink the design of their programs to obtain
referrals or keep offenders in treatment. Flexibility and proactive
management are key elements of change. Generally, first-line managers
and project staff were found to be well trained and highly competent. With
a few significant exceptions, staff turnover was low and morale
exceptionally high. The programs were also found to be adequately
integrated into community substance abuse treatment delivery systems.
Potential referral sources and other treatment providers were well aware of
the programs, and administrators were well informed about most
communication and coordination issues, although they were not always
sufficiently assertive in making needed changes. 

Performance objectives submitted in the grant proposals should be viewed
as dynamic management tools and used more frequently. They should be
communicated to delivery staff, who need to know what they are supposed
to accomplish and whether they are making progress in achieving
objectives.

The evaluation team found that the majority of projects had adhered to
their priority target groups. This was measured in two ways: (1) a
demographic profile of clients served by each project was compared with
the population of the county served and with FDLE arrest data for the
county; and (2) the FDLE and children, youth, and family arrest histories
of adults and juveniles were examined to verify offender status for each
project's client population. No arrest records were found for 24.5 percent
of the adult Caucasian males, for 16.3 percent of the adult African-
American males, and for 40 percent of the juveniles. The relatively high
proportion of offender admissions in most counties is a strong, positive
indicator that the majority of treatment providers have made their
programs readily accessible to substance-involved offenders.

The volume and types of services actually provided were compared with
volume and types of services originally planned. The primary sources of
information were project case records and the quarterly and annual reports
submitted to DCA. Definitions need to be uniform from program to
program so that their reports can be used for analyses. 

Program Outcomes. One frequently used measure of program success is
the completion of the planned course of treatment through active
participation on the part of the client. The combined sample data for 164
juveniles revealed that 26.8 percent successfully completed treatment.
Females were more likely to complete treatment than were males, 34.0
percent versus 24.3 percent, and Caucasian males were significantly more
likely to complete treatment than were African-American males, despite
the fact that two of the three juvenile programs were designed to target
young African-Americans with culturally sensitive education and/or
counseling needs. Overall, 42.9 percent of the adult sample successfully
completed treatment. Caucasian males had a completion rate of 56.7
percent and African-American males 49.5 percent; adult females had rates
of 31.4 percent and 22.6 percent for Caucasians and African-Americans,
respectively. Completion rates varied from program to program, as did
toleration of deviation from program rules and/or court orders. There was
no "standard."

In the absence of controls for client and program characteristics, the direct
effect of education or treatment upon client arrest rates cannot be
estimated. Conversely, it cannot be definitively concluded that treatment
did not influence the rates. The posttreatment findings do provide a useful
indicator of program outcomes. Of 487 adult offenders, randomly selected,
who had been out of treatment for at least 6 months, 22.1 percent had at
least one new arrest; 6.0 percent of all new arrests were for drug offenses.
Twelve months after treatment, 353 offenders had completed treatment,
and 40.7 percent had been rearrested at least once since leaving treatment;
12.5 percent of new arrests were drug related. By 18 months after
treatment, the percentage of new arrests rose to 66.1 percent, with 28.9
percent of those drug related.

Adult after-treatment arrests were also compared using the completion
status of the offender. Six months after treatment, the rearrest rate for
those who had successfully completed treatment was less than half that of
their cohorts who had not, i.e., 13.0 percent versus 29.8 percent. Treatment
completers who had been out of treatment at least 1 year had a 30.2
percent rearrest rate, compared with 47.1 percent for noncompleters. For
this group of offenders, it can be concluded that completing the prescribed
course of treatment is significantly more likely to result in positive client
outcomes. 

Juvenile arrests at 6 months after treatment were 28.6 percent, with 3.7
percent drug related, all of which were for noncompleters. More than 55
percent of juveniles had at least one new arrest after 12 months, with 9.5
percent drug related. After 18 months, the percentages were 84.0 and 28.0,
respectively. After 6 months the percentages for rearrest of completers and
noncompleters was 20.5 and 31.8, respectively. The most positive finding
was that even after 12 months, none of the treatment completers had been
arrested on a new drug-related charge.

------------------------

Chapter 5

ILLINOIS

Gang Violence Reduction Project

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by Irving
Spergel, Ph.D., and Susan F. Grossman, Ph.D., of the School of Social
Service Administration, University of Chicago.

An evaluation of the Gang Violence Reduction Project was conducted by
the University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, using
Byrne grant funds.

Program Overview

The Gang Violence Reduction Project was initiated in July 1992 in Little
Village, a mainly Hispanic/Latino lower income and working-class
community. Little Village has one of the highest gang-violence rates of the
Hispanic/Latino and African-American communities in Chicago. The area
is the home base for two of the largest Hispanic/Latino gangs in the
Midwest, the Latin Kings and the Two Six. The project was funded by the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Federal
Violence Reduction in Urban Areas Program. Funds were appropriated
through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority to the Chicago
Police Department, which administers the project.

The project assumes that a relatively small number of youth, 17 to 25
years old, is responsible for most of the serious gang violence in the area.
It also addresses the fragmented efforts of police, other justice agencies,
youth agencies, and local organizations. The community and justice
system must direct special attention to issues of control and social
development, including providing jobs, training, and education for these
hardcore older gang youth who are responsible for most of the violent
gang crime and are models for young recruits to the gang.

Goals and Objectives

The chief goal of the Gang Violence Reduction Project is to lower the
level of gang violence or reduce the rate of increase among older hardcore
targeted youth, as well as in the Little Village area as a whole, compared
with other similar nontargeted youth in the same area or in other areas of
the city with a high rate of gang violence. Highly violent or highly at-risk
gang members, 17 to 24 years of age, were targeted in the first 4 years of
the project; an additional group of violent and highly at-risk gang youth,
14 to 16 years of age, was added in the fourth year of the project. 

The first objective of the project was to reduce, absolutely or relatively,
the levels of serious gang violence (particularly gang homicides,
aggravated gang batteries, and aggravated gang assaults) among 200
youth, mainly from 2 large gangs, targeted in the program. The second
objective was to reduce the aggregate level of gang violence in the target
beats of the 10th District of the Chicago Police Department, which
included Little Village, in comparison with preselected similar high-gang-
crime beats in the Pilsen area of the 12th District and other similar, mainly
Hispanic/Latino, beats in five other districts of the city (8, 9, 13, 14, and
25). A third objective was to lower the level of gang crime as perceived
and experienced by residents and local organizations in Little Village
compared with Pilsen.

Program Activities/Components

The strategy of the program is to target selected gang youth; coordinate the
justice system's response; mobilize local citizens' and organizations'
interest, resources, and efforts; and plan and implement relevant research
evaluation. The strategy evolved from a Youth Gang Violence
Suppression and Intervention Program conducted between 1987 and 1991
and funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
of DOJ.

The Gang Violence Reduction Project team consists of a 10th District
Police Unit of two full-time tactical and two part-time neighborhood
relations officers, including a sergeant; a Cook County Adult Probation
Unit of three full-time probation officers and a supervisor; and a
University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration Unit of
three community youth workers and a supervisor. A field supervisor of the
Pre-Trial Services Unit of the Cook County Circuit Court is also involved
in the project. Weekly unit staff meetings, biweekly interagency field
meetings, and periodic administrative meetings across agencies provide
direction for field staff operations.

Gang leaders, influential members, and shooters (gunshooters) are
identified, and positive relationships are established to assist gang youth in
rethinking their values and the consequences of antisocial behavior,
encouraging them to pursue legitimate careers. Extra constraints for gang
youth continuing to engage in violent behavior include additional contacts,
surveillance, arrest, and special pretrial services. Fieldworkers across units
conduct contacts at least three times per week to deal with gang crises and
related problems. Overlapping, flexible fieldwork schedules cover prime
gang activity times. Backup police coverage is arranged for times when
assigned tactical officers are not on duty. Visits to gang leaders and
influential members in jail and prison facilitate truces and peace
arrangements between warring gangs or factions, although arranging
truces is not a principal objective of the project.

A local community organization, Neighbors Against Gang Violence
(NAGV), has been developed. It comprises representatives of local
Catholic and Protestant churches, the alderman's office, youth agencies, an
employment agency, block clubs, and neighborhood residents whose
purpose it is to support the project team. Increasing communication and
interaction with gang youth and opening up community resources for them
is a major objective of NAGV. The Gang Violence Reduction Project has
assisted NAGV in the development of retreats, parent support meetings,
and church membership gatherings that address the gang problem.

The Gang Violence Reduction Project and NAGV periodically hold
meetings with the District Commander, the Probation Department, and
Research and Development Unit representatives to orient the Commander
about the purpose and nature of the project; provide guidance on how to
strengthen the structure of the Gang Violence Reduction Project; discuss
how the Commander can take increased responsibility for its management
and possible expansion in the district; and encourage the Commander to
use community contacts and provide job contacts for targeted gang youth.

The Gang Violence Reduction Project assists probation administrators
with community agency contacts; facilitates the decentralization of
probation activities targeting gang youth in Little Village; and facilitates
collaboration among probation administrators, community youth workers,
and police in the development of special group counseling and job
development programs. In addition, the program has assisted the Probation
Administration in modifying its procedures to permit sharing of selected
probation data with community youth workers.

The Early Warning Data System (EWDS) maintained by the Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority provides monthly reports on the
types of gang violence in Little Village and comparable areas in other
police districts. 

Additional police and EWDS data are gathered to determine patterns of
change in gang crime. 

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

A planning and evaluation process included the implementation of
baseline community and individual gang member surveys. Individual-level
data from police and juvenile and adult criminal courts on program youth
have also been made accessible. Staff meeting, program service, and other
reports have been developed for accountability, program process, and
project outcome measurement purposes. Research and evaluation material
reflecting the program process and project outcome are periodically
provided to the project employees. Formal and informal discussions are
conducted at staff meetings about the nature and causes of street gang
crime within a historical and comparative or cross-cultural perspective.
Retreats, special seminars, and classes are conducted on the gang problem,
with attention to the education interests and needs of project staff.

A great deal of data are collected to assess the program's efficacy.
Information gathered includes minutes of staff meetings; interviews with
informants; cellular phone records; responses from local community
residents, agency representatives, and gang youth served; workers'
program reports; monthly program summaries; interviews with gang
members; field research observations; and other reports of the Chicago
Police Department. This information indicates the number of youth
contacted; the purpose and frequency of the contacts; the actions taken by
the workers; the results of the workers' efforts; the number and kinds of
jobs offered to and taken by targeted youth and for how long; the number
of school referrals and the kinds of school-related problems that exist; the
number of home visits and types of problems encountered there; the
quality of worker contact with youth; the level of gang member
satisfaction with worker services; the number of gang contacts; the number
of gang fights, shootings, and injuries; the number of gang member deaths,
both gang- and non-gang-related; the planned activities in which youth
engage; the number and types of actions by workers to avert gang conflict;
the level of community awareness of the Gang Violence Reduction
Project; the number, purposes, and conclusions of meetings with the
Commander of the 10th District; and perceptions of the community as to
police effectiveness with regard to gangs.

The activities of NAGV are monitored through the minutes of their
meetings; monthly reports to the Chicago Police Department; the minutes
of their 2-day retreat and special community meetings; and funding
proposals. These show the number of meetings held; the number and kinds
of actions taken at board meetings; the number and kinds of plans and
activities organized and implemented; and the quality of the organization's
leadership.

Qualitative and quantitative changes in the involvement of the Police and
Probation Departments are assessed through monthly program reports;
memoranda to probation and police administrators; the number and
purpose of interagency meetings at the main probation and Little Village
decentralized offices; and the number of instances of Probation
Department collaboration with the police and community workers and the
nature of the problems addressed. Other performance measures include the
number of interagency and community work staff meetings at which gang
research or training data were presented and the nature of the content
provided.

An evaluation of the project was conducted by the University of Chicago,
School of Social Service Administration. Interviews were conducted with
gang youth in the summer and fall of 1995, in large measure comparing
the results of earlier analyses. Three different program cohorts of the target
gangs, the Latin Kings and the Two Six, were included in the analysis. For
the first cohort (N=72), data from three points in time were examined to
determine changes in violent and deviant behavior, educational attainment,
employment, gang status or attachment, and involvement in legal and
illegal moneymaking activities. The second program cohort (N=31)
included individuals interviewed in 1994 and 1995, allowing for a 2-year
comparison. Finally, a third program cohort (N=45), composed primarily
of younger gang members (14-16 years of age), was interviewed for the
first time in 1995 and evaluated, both separately and in relation to the
other cohorts.

Respondents in all three cohorts were asked about their activities in
relation to a series of 16 crimes, 9 of which involved violence either with
or without a weapon and 7 of which were property-related crimes. The
youth were also asked about drugselling behavior. A series of indexes was
constructed from these questions and used to determine the ratio of
violence to property crime as well as violence to drugselling activity. 

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

An examination of Chicago Police Department data, verified by EWDS,
indicated that the target, Little Village, compared with six other high-
gang-violence areas, mainly Hispanic/Latino communities, had the lowest
level of increase of violent gang incidents over a 4-year project period,
compared with a 4-year preproject period. The lowest increase in gang
incidents, for a combination of gang homicides, aggravated batteries, and
aggravated assaults, occurred in Little Village. Homicide, however, in this
combination, did increase compared with several of the other areas.

The Little Village police beat in District 10 also underwent the lowest rate
of increase in violent gang incidents for the numbers of serious gang
offenders, and the second lowest rate in increase in Hispanic/Latino
serious violent gang offenders, compared with the other six areas over the
same 4-year program period.

The Gang Violence Reduction Project targeted 17-to-24-year-olds and, to
some extent, gang youth 16 years of age and under. The program-targeted
age group experienced the lowest rate of increase in gang incidents
compared with other districts in the sample. The group 16 years of age and
under in Little Village also achieved the lowest rate of increase in gang
incidents compared with other districts in the 4-year project period. The
percentage increase in gang incidents for older young adults 25 years of
age and over was substantial, but the number involved was relatively
small.

The evaluation was also able to distinguish incidents committed by
targeted and nontargeted gangs in Little Village. The Latin Kings and the
Two Six were still responsible for the preponderance of serious violent
gang crimes in the area, but generally experienced a smaller combined rate
of increase in number of offenders involved in gang homicides, aggravated
batteries, and aggravated assaults, compared with the other
Hispanic/Latino and African-American gangs in the areas that were not
targeted. However, for targeted gangs, the rate of increase of other types of
gang crime, particularly drug arrests, which were mainly for possession of
marijuana and cocaine, was almost three times more than the increase for
the other Hispanic/Latino and African-American gangs in Little Village.
As the project targets Little Village and the gangs in that area are
Hispanic/Latino and African-American, there are no statistics for
Caucasian and Asian gangs.

Police arrest histories provided a different set of outcome variables,
perhaps more reliable with respect to their impact on the project than self-
reports of criminal behavior. The results, contrary to self-reports, indicated
that, compared with the 3-year preprogram period, the average number of
arrests for all crimes, as well as for violent, property, and drug crimes,
increased over the course of the 3-year program period. This was true
especially for the two gangs and specifically for those gang members
under 19 years of age. However, individuals 19 and older experienced a
reduction in total crime, violence, and property crime at statistically
significant levels, with some increase in drug-dealing arrests that was not
statistically significant. Individuals served by youth workers only (and
usually with fewer prior arrests than youth served by a combination of
different types of workers) also appeared to do better for some of the
categories of crime. Those youth 19 and older served in the coordinated
approach experienced a reduction in violent crime activity.

Within the project period, i.e., comparing the third to the first program
year, results show that Latin King members and individuals 19 and older,
as well as those in the coordinated service group, experienced reductions
in the average number of arrests for total crime, violent crime, and
property crime. In many instances, these reductions were statistically
significant. There were also reductions for some categories of crime --
particularly property crime -- among those members of the Two Six gang
and individuals under 19 when the project began. Further, for some
subgroups and some crime categories, those in the gang-worker-only
(youth worker) group did as well or better than those receiving
coordinated services. The results pertaining to arrests for drug-related
offenses were mixed. The Latin Kings experienced a small increase in the
average number of arrests for these crimes, but there was no change for the
Two Six.

A series of multiple regression models was constructed to determine
which sets of variables were most promising under controlled conditions
in predicting a reduction in total arrests and arrests for violent crime,
including murder, aggravated battery, simple battery, aggravated assault,
simple assault, armed robbery, and robbery, for the project and no-service
control groups. 

Those in the project group who were 19 years of age and older had fewer
arrests in the 3-year project period compared with project participants who
were under 19 years and those of all ages in the no-service control group.
The model, which accounted for 12 percent of the variance in total arrests
over the 3-year project period, included the coordinated service variable.
Youth receiving coordinated services who had more prior arrests had
fewer arrests in the 3-year project period than those in the coordinated
services group with a smaller number of prior arrests, as well as project
cases in other types of project service groups and those in the no-service
control group.

The best model for project cases only with respect to the variance in total
arrests over the 3-year project period was the service variable, which
measured service from community youth workers only. This model
accounted for 18 percent of variance in total arrests. The coefficient for the
service variable indicated that those who received services only from
community youth workers had fewer arrests in the 3-year period compared
with all those not in this group.

The project was apparently most effective in assisting older youth to
significantly reduce their criminal activities--especially violence--more
quickly than would have been the case if no project services were
provided. The project did not appear to be effective with younger youth.
Possibly, an insufficient project focus on younger youth and involvement
with schools, which was more important for younger than older youth,
may partially account for this lack of positive project effect.

Approximately 100 residents in the high-gang-violence blocks and
representatives of 50 local community groups or agencies were
interviewed in both Little Village and Pilsen (the most similar comparison
community) at Time 1 and Time 2, two years apart during the project
period. Comparisons were made between the views of residents of Little
Village and of Pilsen, and also between residents living in the Latin King
and Two Six territories.

Residents in Little Village, especially those in Latin King territory,
reported significantly greater improvement in community conditions, that
is, their perceptions about the scope, severity, and their own experiences
related to the gang problems were more positive than those of residents
living in Pilsen or Two Six territory.

Between Time 1 and Time 2, significantly more Little Village residents
thought the community was better and fewer thought the community was
worse. More residents perceived an increase in safety. There was less fear
of walking the streets of the neighborhood; decreased worry about being a
victim of crime, gang and nongang; and a reduction in gang violence and
gang property crime. Pilsen residents perceived reductions in concerns
about safety and crime, but these changes were for the most part not
statistically significant.

These findings are consistent with those obtained from individual
interviews and self-reports and from the aggregate-level police data
comparisons. It is likely that residents' views in Little Village, and
especially Latin King territory, reflected reduced levels of gang crime
actually occurring, a response in large measure to the presence of the Gang
Violence Reduction Project.

------------------------

Chapter 6

IOWA

Batterer's Education Program

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by Richard
Moore, Administrator of the Statistical Analysis Center, and Terry Hudik,
Justice System Analyst of the Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Planning.

The Byrne Grant Program has supported the Batterer's Education Program
(BEP) by funding the eight District Departments of Correctional Services
to either hire or contract program coordinators and facilitators.
Additionally, Byrne grant funds have supported the Department of
Corrections (DOC) training programs for facilitators for the BEP. This
evaluation of the BEP was requested and supported by DOC, in part with
funding from the Byrne Grant Program.

Program Overview

Iowa Code section 708.2A(4) requires that all persons convicted of
domestic abuse assault must be sentenced to at least 2 days in jail and
ordered by the court to complete a BEP. The BEP is designed to teach
batterers how to stop using controlling and abusive behavior in
relationships with their partners; the program promotes the philosophy that
there is no justification for behavior that includes physical, emotional, and
psychological abuse.

The Byrne Grant Program has supported this program by providing
funding to the eight District Departments of Correctional Services (DCS)
to either hire or contract for program coordinators and facilitators. During
the last 48 months, all DCS district offices have received funding for
development or enhancement of programs. FY 1996 funding is supporting
six of the districts. Two districts have reached the limit for Federal funding
and requested State support for their programs. As a result of program
evaluation demonstrating performance and need, their requests have been
funded.

Additionally, Byrne funds have supported DOC detraining programs for
facilitators for the BEP. Because of the increased demand for additional
programs, ongoing training and refresher courses have been needed during
the past few years. In FY 1994, 2,749 offenders were ordered by the court
to attend BEPs; in FY 1995, the number increased to 3,483.

Goals and Objectives

The goal of the BEP is to eliminate controlling and abusive behavior by
abusers toward their partners. The objectives of the BEP are to:

o Protect and keep victims safe.

o Hold batterers accountable so they can effect personal change (learn
alternatives to coercive, dominating, and violent behavior).

o Reduce physical, emotional, and psychological abuse.

o Support a community response to end domestic violence.

Program Activities/Components

The BEP operates statewide through the eight DCS districts. Judicial
districts contract with agencies in their areas to provide program services
for offenders in 1 or more counties, so they are available in all 99 counties.
Service providers include community colleges, mental health centers,
domestic violence shelters, DOC services, and a variety of social service
agencies. The most common contracts are for program coordinators and
facilitators because program guidelines require that classes be conducted
by two trained and certified facilitators (one male and one female). Many
of the contracts require personnel to contact the victim to ensure his or her
safety, provide information about the BEP, and refer the victim for
services to existing agencies.

Through classroom and other group activities, BEP participants experience
a curriculum designed to eliminate the use of controlling and abusive
behavior in their relationships with their partners. Program components
include:

o An intake interview with a BEP staff person.

o Attendance at an orientation session.

o Weekly 2-hour group sessions for 16-24 consecutive weeks.

o Satisfactory completion of homework.

o Payment in full for the course. (Payment is set on a sliding scale
according to income and ranges from $2 to $36 per session.)

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

Multiple methodologies were used in conducting this research, including
an analysis of existing laws as they related to the BEP, an analysis of BEP
participation and completion data as maintained by DOC, a review of the
standards formulated by DOC for the individual BEP programs, survey
instruments, onsite record searches, and interviews. 

The first task undertaken was the analysis of existing laws relating to the
BEP, including both statutory and case law. From this analysis, a
"Domestic Abuse Legal Model" was formulated that described how the
criminal justice system was apparently designed to function in domestic
abuse cases, based on existing laws. Using the legal model as a
foundation, a survey instrument was developed and sent to all BEP
coordinators for completion. The survey sought both to identify those
counties in which the domestic abuse processing procedures appeared to
deviate from the legal model and to quantify the degree of deviation.
When the initial survey did not produce the desired level of information, a
second survey instrument was developed with the assistance of DOC and
was then distributed to the BEP coordinators. The combined results of the
two surveys produced sufficient information to proceed with the research
effort.

The data from the BEP coordinators were used as a basis to select counties
for further study. The counties were divided into four groups according to
population, and from each group three counties not being served by a BEP
or showing higher degrees of deviation from the legal model were chosen
for onsite visits. During the visits to the selected counties, project staff
examined the records of the district court and, from those records,
extracted data regarding domestic abuse and certain other cases. Domestic
abuse cases were reviewed for initial charges made and by whom they
were made, the disposition of the case, and, in the event of a conviction,
the sanctions imposed by the court. Other cases, such as disorderly
conduct, public intoxication, assault that was not domestic abuse,
harassment, etc., were reviewed in an attempt to determine whether these
cases involved instances of domestic abuse, but were not filed as such, and
who filed them. Pro se domestic abuse charges were also examined to
determine the extent to which these cases resulted in the alleged offender
being ordered to participate in the BEP. The data were then collected into
a database and subjected to various quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Project staff also interviewed criminal justice officials, such as the county
attorney or assistant who prosecuted the majority of the domestic abuse
cases, law enforcement administrators, and judges, to determine their
policies regarding the arrest, charging, prosecution, and sentencing of
domestic-abuse-related cases. Staff also determined at what point in the
arrest, prosecution, and adjudication process offenders were referred to the
BEP for each location examined. 

Phase two of the research project concentrated on compiling and analyzing
data contained in the DOC computerized BEP database, the computerized
criminal history (CCH) records maintained by the Iowa Department of
Public Safety, and the court records maintained by the various clerks of
the Iowa District Court. Analyses of the BEP database were conducted to
identify certain characteristics of offenders involved with the BEP and to
determine BEP completion rates. This same information, together with the
data collected from CCH and court records, was used in assessing the
extent to which BEP participants were charged with domestic assault
following their involvement with the program.

BEP Completion Data

For purposes of these analyses, completion of BEP was defined as having
successfully completed the prescribed BEP course of study, as defined and
implemented by the organization conducting the individual program that
the client attended. If a client was terminated from the program for cause
and subsequently completed the program, he or she was considered to
have successfully completed the BEP. Nonsuccessful completion was
defined as those BEP clients who did not successfully complete the
prescribed BEP course of study as defined and implemented by the
organization conducting the individual program that the client attended.

In this study, selected differences among some of the study variables were
examined to determine whether they were statistically significant. The
goal of the analysis was to further examine program completion rates by
controlling for the extent to which they were affected by selected
characteristics of BEP programs and participants, such as sex, race, age,
judicial district, length of program, program delivery method (DOC or
private), and adherence to legal model. The procedures used in the study to
determine statistically significant differences were conducted to allow for
at least a 95 percent probability that if a given difference between study
variables is identified as statistically significant, it is due to a relationship
between those variables rather than due to chance. The lack of statistical
significance does not mean that an observed difference between two
variables has been proven to be due to chance. Rather, it would be more
appropriate to say that a relationship between the variables could not be
verified--it may or may not exist.

BEP Recidivism Data

To further assess the effectiveness of the BEP, an examination of how the
successful completion of the program has an impact on the recidivism of
the program's participants was conducted. Current Iowa law requires all
persons convicted of domestic assault to enroll in a BEP. Such a
requirement precludes a comparison of the recidivism of domestic assault
perpetrators who participate in a BEP with the recidivism of domestic
assault perpetrators who do not participate in any BEP. Given the data
collected by DOC from the BEP providers, however, it was possible to
identify two groups of offenders for whom a comparison of information on
recidivism might lend itself to the examination of BEP effectiveness: those
who successfully complete the BEP program and those who are terminated
from the program and do not successfully complete it.

Before attempting to determine the domestic abuse recidivism rate of these
individuals, an indicator of recidivism had to be chosen. The BEP process
was reviewed, and it was determined that the indicator for this study
would be the rearrest and prosecution of an offender on domestic assault
charges after a preliminary hearing by the court.

This evaluation attempts to answer the following question regarding
recidivism: Does the observed overall relationship between completion of
the BEP and rearrest hold equally true for participants of different ages or
for programs of different lengths? The recidivism data are restricted to 
assessments of the extent to which the overall observed difference between
the recidivism rate of persons who complete the BEP and those who are
terminated from the BEP is significant when controlling for certain BEP
participants or program characteristics, such as sex, race, age, judicial
district, length of program, adherence to legal model, and type of program.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

Analyses of the data collected in this evaluation effort did indicate that
there was a statistically significant difference (though small) between the
rearrest rates of BEP participants who completed the program and those
who were terminated from the program: Persons completing the BEP
program were somewhat less likely to be rearrested for domestic abuse
assault than were persons who had been terminated from the program.

Program Completion

Perhaps one of the more informative, though simplistic, findings of this
research is that about 40 percent of all State Fiscal Year 1994 offenders
participating in BEP did not complete the program. When BEP completion
rates were examined and controlled for certain program and offender
characteristics, it was found that not all types of offenders or program
approaches experienced the same completion rate:

o African-American participants were less likely to complete the BEP than
were Caucasian participants.

o 17- to 21-year-olds were less likely to complete the BEP than were
participants in other age groups.

o 16-week BEP programs had higher completion rates than did 24-week
programs.

o Offenders were more likely to complete a BEP in areas where justice
system officials were perceived as supportive of the intent of Iowa's
domestic abuse laws and BEPs.

o Women and men completed the BEP at about the same rate.

o Completion rates were similar in BEPs staffed by DCS employees and
those staffed by contractual service providers.

Recidivism Rates

Individuals completing the BEP were rearrested for domestic assault at a
somewhat lower rate (15 percent) than those who did not complete the
program (20 percent). It is important to note that not all types of offenders
or program approaches experienced the same difference in rearrest rates of
those who completed the BEP and those who were terminated from the
program.

o Males who completed the BEP had lower rearrest rates than those who
did not, but this was not true for females.

o Caucasians who completed the BEP had lower rearrest rates than those
who did not, but this was not true for African-Americans.

o Participants aged 22-26 who completed the BEP had lower rearrest rates
than those who did not, but this was not true for other age groups.

o Offenders who completed BEP programs provided through contract
service providers had lower rearrest rates than those who did not complete
the program, but this was not true for programs provided directly by DCS
staff.

o Lower rearrest rates were found for BEP participants who completed the
program in areas where justice system officials were perceived to be
supportive of Iowa's domestic abuse laws, but not for participants in areas
with officials who were not.

o The length of the program (16 or 24 weeks) was not related to the
finding that those who completed the BEP had lower rearrest rates than
those who did not complete the program. 

Uniformity of BEP Policies and Practices

BEP program policies and practices were observed to vary, sometimes
widely, in their formal or informal handling of attendance issues, offender
disruption and nonparticipation, termination of the offender from the
program, and readmission to the program. When added to the varied ways
in which other system components respond to domestic violence, such
differences among BEPs may contribute to concerns over the purpose and
effectiveness of the program.

------------------------

Chapter 7

NEW YORK

Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program

The evaluation research presented in this report was conducted by Douglas
Young, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Vera Institute of Justice.

In 1992, New York State, noting the promising results of the Brooklyn
Prosecutor's program, supported expansion of the Drug Treatment
Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program to two other boroughs in New
York City--Queens and Manhattan, and to the special prosecutor. Edward
Byrne Memorial formula grant funds were allocated, and the Special
Prosecutor Program was initiated in Brooklyn in 1992, in Queens in 1993,
and in Manhattan in 1994. Technical assistance to the sites was provided
by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the
Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. A private agency, the
Legal Action Center, was enlisted to assist with contract issues and with
issues of confidentiality, and the Vera Institute of Justice was contracted to
help develop a program evaluation.

Program Overview

DTAP was designed and implemented by the Kings County (Brooklyn)
District Attorney in 1990, in response to increased pressure on public
budgets. The program offers nonviolent repeat felony defendants, who
typically face 3 to 6 years in prison under New York State's mandatory
sentencing laws, the option of completing long-term residential drug
treatment in lieu of incarceration. If they complete treatment, the charges
are dismissed; if they fail to do so, they face prison terms of at least 18
months. The prospect of prison is enhanced by special enforcement teams
that apprehend and return absconders. The result is an alternative, cost-
effective criminal justice initiative that maintains community safety while
addressing the underlying causes of drug-related crime. 

The program, a partnership of criminal justice and drug treatment, has
gained cooperation from initially resistant agencies within the criminal
justice system. The public defender was uncertain of DTAP because it is a
prosecutor-led initiative, but the resistance was overcome by the inclusion
of the public defender's office in the planning and implementation phases
of the project. 

The project expanded to include the Special Narcotics Prosecutor (a
citywide office) in 1992, Queens District Attorney in 1993, and Manhattan
District Attorney in 1994. By mid-1996, 1,300 drug offenders had entered
the program through 4 sites, and the number of community-based
treatment providers serving DTAP participants grew from 2 in 1990 to 39
in 1996.

Goals and Objectives

The short-term goals were to lower costs by diverting prison-bound
defendants to less expensive treatment beds and to retain relatively large
numbers of them in treatment. The long-term goals were to reduce drug
use, reduce criminal recidivism, and improve the vocational and social
capabilities of program participants.

The objectives to achieve these goals were to:

o Identify at least 300 second-felony defendants judged eligible for
admission to DTAP treatment by the prosecutor and treatment staff.

o Identify an equal number of residential treatment slots in privately run
therapeutic communities (TCs) that could be made available to DTAP
participants on a priority basis.

o Collaborate with prosecutors and treatment providers to ensure
appropriate, efficient selection of participants and reliable reporting of
their progress.

o Implement enforcement mechanisms, including special warrant squads,
to ensure the rapid apprehension of absconders.

o Maintain a program completion ratio of at least 60 percent (i.e., at least
60 percent of all those admitted to DTAP complete treatment and have
their charges dismissed).

o Maintain a criminal recidivism rate of no more than 25 percent for
graduates (i.e., no more than 25 percent of graduates are rearrested within
1 year of completing the program).

o Evaluate the impact of the program in light of these goals and objectives.

Program Activities/Components

In 1992, New York State, noting the promising results of the Brooklyn
Prosecutor's program, supported the expansion of DTAP into two other
boroughs in New York City, Queens and Manhattan, and to the Special
Prosecutor. Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Funds were allocated,
and the Special Prosecutor program was initiated in 1992, the Queens
program in 1993, and the Manhattan one in 1994. Technical assistance
was provided by the State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the
Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. A private agency, the
Legal Action Center, was enlisted to assist with confidentiality and
contractual issues, and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) was contracted
to help develop a program evaluation.

Most of the core elements of the Brooklyn model were adopted by the
three new sites. All DTAP participants are nonviolent defendants charged
with felonies who, if convicted, would receive mandatory prison terms as
second-felony offenders. All participants are determined to be in need of,
and motivated to participate in, drug treatment. All agree to participate in a
residential treatment program that lasts 14 to 24 months in lieu of prison.
All programs serving DTAP are run by private, community-based agencies
employing the TC treatment model. If participants complete the treatment
program, charges against them are dismissed. Failure to do so is met with
a prison sentence at least as long as the one the defendant would serve in
the absence of DTAP. Each program employs a special enforcement team
of investigators who verify participants' community contacts prior to
treatment and who search for and return absconders.

The programs do differ in some important respects. The Brooklyn District
Attorney reviews all cases appearing in the borough's drug courts,
soliciting program applications from defendants with prior nonviolent
felonies charged with B felony narcotics sales in strong "buy and bust"
cases. The other programs inform the defense bar about the program and
its admission criteria and take applications initiated by the defense in
criminal court. The legal mechanism underlying the Manhattan, Queens,
and Special Narcotics programs is deferred sentencing, whereby DTAP
defendants must plead to C felony charges before entering the program. In
contrast, Brooklyn defers prosecution on the DTAP defendant's case;
individuals who abscond from these programs face minimum prison terms
ranging from 18 months to 3 1/2 years. One other difference concerns
flexibility in enforcing the plea policy: Second referrals to treatment are
considered in the newer programs, but are not made in the Brooklyn
program. 

All treatment is delivered in long-term residential facilities called
therapeutic communities. Services offered augment drug treatment and
include HIV education, counseling and testing; onsite medical care;
vocational training; and assistance in finding employment and housing.
The most frequently used DTAP treatment providers have been Daytop
Village and Veritas, which have each admitted more than 70 participants
from 1 or more of the 4 sites. Other TCs admitting more than 10
participants include Odyssey House, Samaritan Village, Damon House,
Phoenix House, Promesa House, and Inward House. 

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

The DTAP programs at each prosecutor site collect data on program
performance that are then compiled and aggregated by the State. Data
include the number of defendants screened for admission, accepted in the
program, and placed in treatment; the number who abscond, are
discharged, or otherwise leave treatment early; and, of those leaving
treatment, the number who remain at large. At any given time, each
program must be able to report the number of DTAP participants currently
occupying beds at each private treatment provider used by the program.
Data on program completions are also compiled. Additionally, the State's
substance abuse office, together with the District Attorney sites, maintains
a count of the number of treatment slots designated for each DTAP, their
location (the provider agency), and the number of such slots currently
available. A summary of research methods follows.

A. Program admission, termination, and disposition data analyzed for this
report cover the period from December 1992, when the first participants
were admitted to the expansion programs, through mid-June 1996. Data
were compiled by DTAP staff; Vera then checked and validated retention
and termination data at treatment providers' sites for expansion units.
Through 1995, Vera interviewed most DTAP participants entering
treatment from the expansion programs within a week or so of their
admission. A total of 217 intake interviews were conducted, representing
77 percent of all expansion site admissions during this period.

The core assessment tool used in the interview, the Addiction Severity
Index, is designed to assess respondents' history and extent of current
problems in seven areas: employment, alcohol use, illegal activity, drug
use, medical conditions, psychiatric conditions, and family relations. The
interview also includes a motivational measure that has been used to
predict retention in TCs, an experimental scale developed by Vera
researchers to assess perceptions of legal coercion, and a questionnaire on
reasons for entering treatment.

The primary statistical techniques employed are one-way analyses of
variance and contingency table analyses. In each case, a test of
significance is performed. (The technical details of results are available
from the Vera Institute of Justice upon request.) Any conclusions drawn
from this research must be regarded as tentative given the absence of an
experimental design with control or comparison groups. (See Diverting
Drug Offenders to Treatment, Year Two Report on DTAP Expansion,
Vera Institute of Justice.)

B. Vera is comparing retention among Brooklyn DTAP participants and a
statistically matched group of probationers, parolees, and others ordered
by the court to attend the same treatment facilities DTAP uses. Other
analyses focus on the effectiveness of specific coercive strategies, such as
closely monitoring the progress of treatment, using special enforcement
squads, and imposing severe penalties for dropping out of the program.
(See Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug Treatment Programs: The
Role of Perceived Legal Pressure, Summary, Vera Institute of Justice.)
The quasi-experimental research design is devised to test two central
hypotheses:

o DTAP participants stay in treatment for longer periods and show greater
retention rates compared with a matched sample of other legally mandated
clients attending the same treatment programs.

o Legal coercion, as measured by the Perceived Legal Pressure scale,
significantly and independently predicts the retention of all legally
mandated clients in the treatment program.

C. Vera, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, and other
researchers are expanding their investigation. The 5-year collaborative
study will measure the impact of DTAP and compare its costs and benefits
with those associated with traditional court processing of repeat felony
drug offenders. Vera's primary contribution to this research is an
exhaustive study of treatment retention comparing DTAP participants with
all other criminal-justice-involved clients who attend the treatment
facilities DTAP uses.

A longitudinal quasi-experimental design is being used for three
substudies: impact, legal coercion, and benefit-cost. The retention,
posttreatment outcomes, and program costs are being compared for a
sample of 200 DTAP offenders and a sample of 150 offenders with similar
charges, criminal records, and demographics, as well as a desire for drug
treatment upon release from prison during the same period. A new sample
of 200 clients of the same treatment programs used by DTAP participants,
but referred from other criminal justice sources, is being compared with
DTAP participants for retention and legal coercion analyses.

Impact Evaluation Substudy. Posttreatment outcomes of DTAP
participants (experimental) are compared with a matched sample of drug
offenders who are prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms. Subjects were
interviewed before they entered treatment or prison and upon reentry into
the community. Followup interviews are to be conducted at 6 months and
at 1-year after completion of treatment. The experimental sample consists
of 150 DTAP participants who successfully completed TC treatments and
50 who dropped out or were expelled and were subsequently convicted
and sentenced to prison. The inclusion of failures in this sample corrects
for potential selection bias inherent in using only program completers for
comparison. The dropout subjects were selected from among those whose
dropout rates and subsequent lengths of prison sentence resulted in a 1-
year at-risk time closest to those of the prospective DTAP samples. Like
the DTAP completers, the dropouts were interviewed in the community
following their release from prison.

The recidivism analyses are supplemented by data from official records for
all DTAP participants who were admitted prior to June 1995 and failed to
complete treatment. Recidivism rates for this group will be compared with
the 150 DTAP completers and 150 prisoners who are members of the
comparison group (discussed shortly) to assess whether participation in
treatment for a substantial period of time before dropping out and
receiving a prison term has a favorable effect on posttreatment criminal
activity. The comparison group consists of 150 drug offenders convicted
of a second drug felony offense and sentenced to prison from the other
boroughs of New York City. They are matched to the experimental group
with respect to age, sex, race, penal law conviction charge, length of
sentence, criminal history, history of drug abuse, and motivation to seek
treatment. A brief screening questionnaire is administered to determine
eligibility for the study.

To further ensure similarity of the DTAP and comparison groups, an
aggregate or frequency distribution matching procedure is used. Aggregate
matching involves selecting individuals from the comparison population in
such a way as to make the overall distributions of the experimental and
comparison groups correspond on the key matching variables. After the
potential comparison sample member is initially identified, it is
determined whether the individual falls within the distributions observed
for the DTAP sample. Those who fall outside the distribution on any of
the matching variables or who have matching variables that are fully
represented in the comparison sample are excluded from the subject pool.
The final two matching criteria, drug use/treatment history and motivation
for treatment, are determined from the screening interviews conducted at
the prison. As final insurance against nonequivalence, statistical controls
in data analysis are employed to adjust for unforeseen or unavoidable
intergroup differences that persist after the full samples have been
recruited. 

Legal Coercion Substudy. The design established a new comparison
sample of 200 individuals that is more representative of the population of
legally mandated treatment clients in New York City. Approximately 100
of these are Treatment Alternative to Street Crime (TASC) clients, who
will be treated as a discrete sample in several comparative statistical
analyses. The 150 DTAP participants constituting the prospective
experimental sample in the impact substudy also serve as the experimental
sample in this study. In addition, the 162 subjects who participated in the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study continue to be tracked under this
research. Interviews with 40 supervising criminal justice agents (TASC
counselors, probation officers, and parole officers) are also part of this
substudy.

Benefit-Cost Substudy. Analyses of the net social benefits of DTAP
participation will use interview data collected from the DTAP and
comparison group sample described in the impact substudy. The analysis
of criminal justice system benefits will be based in part upon a different
comparison group. This sample will consist of the first 150 paper-eligible
candidates for DTAP who either refused the program or were screened out
for reasons other than the weakness of the case against them. Court
processing and associated data from this sample will yield more accurate
estimates of system costs, because it can be assumed that the conviction
and imprisonment rates for this group will be equal to those which DTAP
participants would have experienced but for their diversion from the
program. The system cost attributable to criminal recidivism will be based
upon the impact study comparison group. Official records will be used to
estimate the savings in court processing and sentencing costs associated
with the hypothesized lower recidivism rates of the DTAP sample.
(Research in progress under a grant from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, Vera Institute of Justice.) 

D. Review of official arrest records by the Brooklyn DTAP office.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

A. Funded by New York State, Vera's research on DTAP provides
evidence of the model's achievements: DTAP participants stay in
treatment longer and have higher completion rates compared with people
in similar programs; they are unlikely to commit crimes during treatment--
to date, there have been no arrests for violent crimes among participants;
and early data indicate low rates of recidivism among DTAP graduates.

Most findings are based on data gathered from the sites and treatment
providers through June 15, 1996. By that date, 1,035 defendants had been
admitted to treatment; 500 participants were in the program; and the
number of treatment providers was up to 39. Through October 15, 1996,
18 percent of DTAP participants were arrested for a crime or for
absconding after admitting to a crime, none for violent offenses. Overall,
63 percent of those admitted to the program have graduated or remain in
treatment. Of all the participants, 89 percent were still in treatment at least
3 months after admission, 75 percent stayed at least 6 months, and 63
percent stayed at least 1 year. These rates are 1 1/2 to 4 times those reported
by comparable treatment programs. Virtually all treatment experts agree
that retention leads to decreased drug use and criminal recidivism. (See
Diverting Drug Offenders to Treatment, Year Two Report on DTAP
Expansion, Vera Institute of Justice.)

B. Retention rates for DTAP participants and the comparison sample were
found to be similar in multivariate analyses, disproving the study's first
hypothesis. DTAP retention was much higher than retention rates reported
in the general literature for long-term residential care; however, the
comparison sample's rates were equally high. At 3 months after admission
the DTAP sample was 77 percent while the comparison sample's rate was
69 percent--not a significant difference. Little in the overall sample
description accounts for such high retention. It is possible that the
treatment programs studied are especially effective at retaining clients;
another plausible explanation is that these individuals make up a subgroup
of all criminal-justice-involved treatment clients who experience a
relatively high level of legal pressure. Yet another possible explanation is
that the high retention in both groups reflects a generalization or diffusion
of DTAP practices and effects to other clients who attend the same TCs as
DTAP participants. The strong record of apprehension and enforcement of
absconders may serve as an example for all legally mandated clients,
thereby enhancing the credibility of threats made by judges, TASC case
managers, and probation/parole officers. Diffusion could work both ways -
- the presence of the case managers, for example, may have a favorable
impact on DTAP and other participants. There is no way to confirm the
explanation of this diffusion given the mixing of clients in these treatment
programs.

The study's second hypothesis, that perceived legal pressure would be an
important predictor of treatment retention, was confirmed by statistical
analyses that showed the unique impact of Perceived Legal Pressure (PLP)
scale scores on different measures of retention. Multivariate analyses
looked at the impact of the PLP (a questionnaire Vera designed with NIJ
funding) and other predictors (e.g., age, and drug, psychological, and
medical history) on four different retention outcomes. PLP score was the
most powerful predictor in three of these analyses and among the most
powerful in the fourth. (See Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug
Treatment Programs: The Role of Perceived Legal Pressure, Summary,
Vera Institute of Justice.) 

C. Vera, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, and others.
Research in progress.

D. Based on a review of official arrest records, researchers at the Brooklyn
DTAP office have found that for 2 years after completing the program,
their graduates are half as likely to be arrested as offenders with similar
criminal records.

------------------------

Appendix A

Identifying Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria
for the Nomination of Effective Programs

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has created the Intensive Program
Evaluation (IPE) Initiative to respond to the Attorney General's charge to
"find out what works and spread the word." This new initiative establishes
a mechanism to validate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs
based on published criteria, including evaluation results, and to
disseminate information about approved effective programs through
Department of Justice networks directly to practitioners. The approval of
effective programs for dissemination relies on the evaluations to be
conducted by the Program Effectiveness Review Panel. This Panel will
provide independence and rigor in its recommendations to the Director. In
the development of the guidelines, BJA relied heavily upon the Panel, as
well as upon past activities of the National Institute of Justice, to identify
exemplary programs.

The program objectives are to:

o Enhance the ability of State and local agencies to generate and use
evaluation results for strategy development, program improvement, and
effective program identification.

o Identify and document useful approaches to designing and conducting
evaluations at State and local levels.

BJA needs to identify effective State and local criminal justice programs,
practices, and products as part of broader efforts at the national level to
improve the criminal justice system by disseminating useful program
information to policymakers and practitioners. It is an approach that might
be called "leading by example." Through this approach, information on
successful programs will be disseminated to the field in a credible and
timely fashion. The products from this initiative are the results from the 56
laboratories (50 States and 6 territories) put in place under the Byrne
Formula Grant Program.

Program effectiveness guidelines and criteria are presented here for use in
submitting potential programs, as well as for the Program Effectiveness
Review Panel in its review of nominated programs. The Panel reviews the
programs and submits its recommendations to the Director. Once the
effective programs have been approved, BJA bulletins will be published.

I. Abstract

The abstract should be a 1-page description (200-300 words) of the
program that provides a concise statement of concrete, observable
outcomes. The abstract should briefly describe the following aspects of the
program: (1) goals, (2) purposes and needs addressed, (3) method of
operation, (4) audience, and (5) expected result(s). 

II. Basic Information

Basic information should be approximately one page.

 A. Project Title
      Location
     Contact Person

Give the title of the project (including any acronym or abbreviation), the
name of the applicant agency, and the address and a daytime telephone
number of a contact person within the applicant agency.

B. Original Developer
    Applicant Agency

Provide the name(s) and title(s) of those who originally developed the
program. Describe the mission of the applicant agency.

C. Years of Project

Provide (1) date(s) developed, (2) date(s) operated, and (3) date(s)
evaluated.

D. Source(s) and Level(s) of Development and Dissemination Funding

List sources of funding for the project and amounts by year. Categories of
sources include Federal, State, local, and other.

III. Description of Program  

Describe the program in approximately five to six pages.

A. Background, Foundation, and Theoretical Framework

Discuss briefly the history of how and why the program was developed.
Present the theoretical or empirical framework upon which the program is
based.

B. Purposes and Needs Addressed/Problem Statement

Describe the specific needs the program was designed to address. Needs
should be linked to the target audience and special features of the program.

C. Goals

Provide a clear and concise statement of the program goals. Include only
those goals that relate directly to claims of effectiveness. In the case of
evaluation models designed to meet intermediate objectives, make the link
to the ultimate purpose of the program.

D. Objectives

Objectives are the intermediate effects or results to be achieved by the
program in pursuing its ultimate goal. Objectives measure the extent to
which program goals are being accomplished. Identify appropriate
objectives that logically flow from program goals. Objectives should be
stated in terms of outcomes (expected effects or results). A distinction
should be made between outputs (quantities produced) and effects/results. 

E. Intended Audience

Identify the relevant demographic characteristics of the population for
which the objectives are designed.

F. Features: How the Program Operates

Provide a complete description of how the program actually operates,
identifying all features critical to its implementation. Include the following
topics as they apply to the project: (1) scope (Does the project supplement
or replace an existing program, or is it a component of a larger program?),
(2) staff activities and staffing patterns, (3) staff development activities,
(4) management activities, and (5) monitoring and evaluation procedures.

G. Significance of Program Design Compared with Design of Similar
Programs

Describe the features of the program that distinguish it from similar
programs. Discuss ways in which the program addresses special problems.
Note innovative or unique features.

IV. Potential for Replication

Describe the potential for replicating the program in two to three pages.

A. Settings and Participants (Development and Evaluation Sites)

Briefly describe the community(ies) where the intervention was developed
or field tested. Socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic descriptions are
appropriate.

B. Replicable Components and Documentation

Indicate which aspects of the program are appropriate for dissemination to
other sites. If the program has developed support materials for
dissemination, indicate the type of documentation available.

C. User Requirements

Describe the minimum requirements necessary for implementing the
project at another site (e.g., special staff, facilities, staff training time).

D. Costs (for Implementation and Operation)

Present a brief explanation of the recurring and nonrecurring costs
associated with adopting the project. Costs such as personnel costs, special
equipment, and materials and supplies that are necessary for installing
and/or maintaining the program at an adopting site should be discussed.
Costs associated with the development of the original program should be
excluded from this discussion. 

V. Evidence

Provide evidence in approximately six to eight pages.

A. Impact Statement(s)

The specific evaluation methods used to determine the impact of the 
program should be explained.

Succinctly state the major accomplishments of the program and its
activities. Include a brief description of the type of evidence used to
support the fact that an impact was determined and a description of the
nature of the change that was demonstrated.

Generally, an impact statement includes (1) the target group for which
results are available, (2) the nature of the change, (3) the process used for
measuring the impact of the program, and (4) the standards by which to
judge whether the gains achieved are significant.

A clear impact statement is critical because the panel judges the adequacy
of evidence based on the claim. Further, the statement identifies the
project objectives/outcomes that will be approved for dissemination (i.e.,
only those objectives/outcomes that are reflected in the impact
statement(s) and supported by convincing evidence will be approved). 

B. Description of Methodology

1. Design

An evaluation design usually addresses three factors: (1) the timing of data
collection (e.g., pretests and posttests or different points in a time series),
(2) the groups involved (e.g., a group receiving the program and a
comparison group receiving an alternative program), and (3) the way in
which a standard of comparison will be determined (e.g., a treatment
group's gain or change will be compared with national or State
benchmarks).

Describe the type of design used for each claim and the reason for the
choice. Address any assumptions or problems inherent in the research 
design that was used.

2. Sample

The discussion of sampling procedures should answer four questions: (1)
Who participated in the study? (2) How was the sample selected? (3) How
many participants were included in the final sample? (4) How
representative is the sample of the target population and program
participants as a whole?

3. Instruments and Procedures

This section should describe the instruments and/or procedures and how
each assessment technique relates to the outcomes. Provide sufficient
information so that a judgment can be made about the technical strength
and appropriate use of the measure (e.g., validity, reliability, levels,
subscales).

It is especially important to describe validity and reliability procedures for
project-developed instruments; in such cases, the procedures for
instrument development and field testing also should be explained.

4. Data Collection

Describe the procedures used to select and train testers and the actual
strategies used to assure quality control during data collection. Indicate the
periods of data collection, the persons responsible for supervising the data
collection, and the scoring and data summary procedures. It is especially
important to describe in detail the data collection and quality control
procedures for qualitative evaluations.

5. Data Analysis

If data are quantitative in nature, indicate the statistical technique(s) and
levels of significance used in the analysis.

If data are qualitative in nature, describe the procedures used to code and
categorize or reduce information for summary purposes. Describe ways in
which linkages were made across data elements to draw and verify
conclusions.

C. Description of Results

Present detailed results of analyses in table or chart form, if appropriate.
Sufficient detail should be provided for the reader to check conclusions
independently. Also, summarize the results for the claims in narrative
form, relating the specific outcomes to the accomplishment of goals.

D. Summary of Supplementary Evidence

Provide additional evidence that supports the results, including anecdotal
information, perceptions of quality, and levels of satisfaction.
Supplementary evidence can also be evidence of generalizability.

E. Interpretation and Discussion of Results

1. Relationship Between Effect and Treatment

Summarize the results of all data related to the claim that the treatment
was effective. Link the results to specific features of the program design.

2. Control of Rival Hypotheses

Provide evidence of program attribution, i.e., evidence that suggests that
the effects can be attributed to the program and not to some other equally
plausible factor. As appropriate to the design, show how the following
alternative explanations can be eliminated from consideration: maturation,
other treatments, historical factors, statistical regression, attrition,
differential selection of groups, and testing. (Note: Sound evaluation
design can control most rival hypotheses; however, other data may be used
to show attribution of effects.)

F. Significance of Results

1. Relationship of Results to Needs

Demonstrate how the results obtained are important: How do the results
meet the needs for which the project was designed? Establish the
importance of the needs, and demonstrate that the results are broad enough
and powerful enough to be viewed as important.

2. Comparison of Results With Results From Other Programs

Compare the results with results of similar projects or national or
statewide initiatives, if appropriate.

------------------------

Appendix B

Sources for Further Information

For more information on Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice: 

Findings and Results from State and Local Program Evaluations, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-5947

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
301-519-5212 (Fax)

Justice Research and Statistics Association
777 North Capitol Street NE., Suite 801
Washington, DC 20002
202-842-9330

------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for
general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting
grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response
Center, call 1-800-421-6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding
opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA
Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with State and local
agencies and community groups across the country. Information
specialists are available to provide reference and referral services,
publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and
other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be
reached by:

Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

Visit  
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
eastern time

Fax
301-519-5212

Fax on Demand
1-800-688-4252

BJA Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

NCJRS World Wide Web
http://www.ncjrs.org

E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message, 
type: 
subscribe justinfo [your name]