MENU TITLE: COMmunity-Backed Anti-drug Tax.
Series: NIJ Program Focus
Published: July 1996
32 pages
56,689 bytes

National Institute of Justice
Program Focus

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

COMmunity-Backed Anti-drug Tax: COMBAT in Jackson
County, Missouri

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

Highlights

When residents in Kansas City and other areas of
Jackson County, Missouri, felt they were losing
their neighborhoods to the scourge of drugs and
drug-related crime, they approved a November 1989
referendum to enact a sales tax to fund a
broad-based attack against drugs, becoming the
first jurisdiction to pass such a measure.

The COMmunity-Backed Anti-drug Tax, known as
COMBAT, was set originally to expire on March 31,
1997, but 71 percent of the voters supported a
second referendum in November 1995 to renew the tax
for another 7 years.

Although other States have used taxes or allowed
counties the authority to use them for anti-drug
programs, COMBAT has aspects that set it apart:

o A full range of prevention, treatment, and law
enforcement activities.

o A centralized administrative structure; the
county prosecutor has been given substantial
authority and discretion to guide the anti-drug
strategy.

The moneys raised through the tax support eight
program areas that fall under the following three
objectives as adopted by the prosecuting attorney's
office:

o "Jail dangerous criminals and drug dealers."
Money earmarked for this phase supports police
investigations, prosecutions, circuit court, and
corrections. The funds have been used to implement
successful community policing programs in six
Kansas City neighborhoods.

o "Treat nonviolent offenders who honestly want to
get off drugs." Treatment programs, the drug court,
and juvenile court receive funds to help addicts
overcome their dependency.

o "Prevent children from ever experimenting with
drugs." Funds to promote this strategy are
distributed to 33 community nonprofit organizations
that provide drug prevention programs.

Indications of COMBAT's accomplishments include
partnerships forged among agencies and across
geographic boundaries; the promotion of greater
sensitivity and responsiveness to neighborhood
concerns; better coordination between treatment
providers and agencies of the criminal justice
system (police, courts, and corrections); and, most
important, the success in gaining the cooperation
and vigilance of community residents.

The prosecuting attorney's office is developing
data systems to assess program clients' needs and
to monitor program service effectiveness. A
comprehensive evaluation of the COMBAT program will
be sponsored in 1996 by the National Institute of
Justice and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

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

Throughout the 1980s, the citizens of Kansas City,
Missouri, and nearby communities in Jackson County
felt increasingly besieged by drug abuse and
drug-related crime. "Crack cocaine had become an
epidemic," recalled the Reverend James Tindall,
chairman of the Jackson County Legislature. Cocaine
and other illicit drugs such as methamphetamine,
PCP, heroin, and marijuana were openly traded on
street corners. Drug houses were springing up
overnight on many blocks of Kansas City.
Drug-related homicides were on the rise. One out of
every two people arrested was a drug user; 80
percent of all crime involved illegal drugs.1

Residents felt they were losing control of their
neighborhoods. These concerns pervaded not only the
urban core but also nearby cities and outlying
rural areas. Drug trafficking and the drug culture
had become an increasingly violent and menacing
aspect of daily life. Los Angeles-based youth gangs
were making inroads into the drug market; Jamaican
drug dealers began operating, often using brutal
tactics to establish their control. Perhaps most
distressing, the tide of drug abuse was sweeping
into schools.

By November 1989, the residents of Jackson County
decided to fight back. Through a referendum,
Jackson County became the first U.S. jurisdiction
to enact a sales tax to fund a broad-based attack
on drug abuse. (See "Profile of Jackson County,
Missouri.") Administered by the Office of the
Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney, the initiative
was given the name COMBAT, for COMmunity-Backed
Anti-drug Tax. In November 1995, county residents
showed their continued support for COMBAT, voting
more than two-to-one in favor of a 7-year renewal
of the tax.

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

Profile of Jackson County, Missouri

Jackson County, located on the western Missouri
border with Kansas, encompasses an area of 605
square miles. With 635,000 residents, it is the
State's second most populous county, after St.
Louis County. Two-thirds of Jackson County's
population reside in Kansas City (435,000). Other
cities include Independence (the county seat, with
112,000), Lee's Summit (46,000), Blue Springs
(40,000), and Grandview (40,000). The county's
racial mix is 76 percent white and 21 percent
African American.

The county closely mirrors national conditions on
such economic indicators as median family income
($34,300 in 1989), the poverty rate (13 percent in
1989), and the unemployment rate (6.6 percent in
1990). Major employers include AT&T, Hallmark
Cards, Southwestern Bell, Sprint, and the State of
Missouri. There are 12 public school districts;
98,000 students are enrolled in 175 elementary,
junior high, and senior high schools. Among those
25 years and older, 80 percent are high school
graduates (compared to 75 percent nationwide in
1990).

Sales tax rates differ within the county because of
varying city levies. Including all State, county,
and city sales tax components, plus the 0.25
percent levy for COMBAT, the sales tax is 6.475
percent in Kansas City, Lee's Summit, Blue Springs,
and Grandview and 5.975 percent in Independence.

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

The Uniqueness of COMBAT

What makes COMBAT funding unique? Other States and
localities, after all, have supported anti-drug
programs with revenues earmarked from special taxes
and other sources2:

o Sales taxes on alcoholic beverages have been used
in some States to support drug prevention and
treatment (e.g., New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota,
and Washington).

o Several States have provided counties with the
authority to set aside a portion of local property
tax revenues for mental health and substance abuse
programs (e.g., Missouri and Ohio).

o Taxes on alcohol-related advertising have been
used to finance public awareness campaigns on
alcohol abuse.

o Fines collected from those convicted of driving
while intoxicated have been used to fund remedial
classes for offenders.

o Under asset forfeiture programs, proceeds from
the sale of airplanes, automobiles, boats, and
other property seized from convicted drug
traffickers are commonly applied to narcotics
enforcement activity.

Several aspects of COMBAT distinguish it from these
other examples. First is the breadth of COMBAT's
programmatic mission. COMBAT supports a full range
of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement
activities, tackling the consumption and sale of
all commonly available illicit drugs. This
expansive scope, established in the authorizing
legislation, has been enabled by the scale of the
tax collections. COMBAT's broad charter has made it
possible to establish a substantial presence in the
community, to gain the cooperation of the key
organizations and constituencies, and to have a
discernible impact on patterns of drug use and
crime.

Another distinctive aspect of COMBAT is its
centralized administrative structure. The county
legislature conferred upon a single elected
official, the county prosecutor, a substantial
measure of authority and discretion in guiding the
county's anti-drug strategy. This, coupled with the
leverage provided by COMBAT's grants to prevention
and treatment providers, has allowed the prosecutor
to bring anti-drug activities under a single
umbrella. One notable result has been improved
coordination between treatment providers and
agencies of the criminal justice system, including
police, the courts, and corrections. More
generally, COMBAT has enabled the prosecutor's
office to provide the political leadership and
administrative direction necessary to mount and
sustain an effective anti-drug campaign, where
success requires the involvement of an array of
public and private organizations.

Origins of the Anti-Drug Sales Tax

No single event prompted a public outcry in Jackson
County over drug abuse. The person most
instrumental in launching the idea of an anti-drug
sales tax was Albert Riederer, who in November 1988
had been elected to a third 4-year term as Jackson
County prosecutor. During his reelection campaign,
Riederer had been confronted repeatedly by citizens
angered over the seeming inability of police and
the courts to control drug trafficking. These
exchanges convinced Riederer that not only was
better coordination necessary among community
groups, the criminal justice system, and agencies
of city and county government, but also more
resources were needed.

At the same time, leaders in the church community,
community health centers, and other civic
organizations were asserting that the drug problem
should be viewed not simply as a law enforcement
issue but also as a public health issue. This would
require educating individuals about the hazards of
drug use, thus preventing the spread of drug
activity before it threatened the safety of
schools, streets, and neighborhoods and became a
police issue.

After the election, Riederer sought to identify a
source of funds that could be dedicated solely to
drug programs. An increment to the existing sales
tax (about 6 percent, depending on local levies)
seemed the most palatable approach. Although the
sales tax was regressive (i.e., representing a
higher percentage of income for low-income
taxpayers), it was already in place and required no
new organizational machinery. It was a
straightforward, visible, and locally controlled
funding mechanism. Riederer floated the idea
privately among community leaders and elected
officials. The reaction was favorable, reflecting
the mounting groundswell of grassroots support for
concerted action in the fight against drugs.

Before submitting the sales tax to county voters as
a referendum issue, the first step was to obtain
authorization from the Missouri State Legislature.
A bill, introduced in January 1989 and enacted in
April 1989, authorized a 0.25 percent increase in
the sales tax, which was expected to yield about
$14 million annually. Initially, the bill was
drafted specifically as a law enforcement
initiative to fund additional police investigations
and deferred prosecution for nonviolent drug
offenders. As the legislative debate ensued, the
bill was broadened to include treatment programs,
corrections, and circuit court operations.

The debate shifted to the county in August 1989,
where the nine-member county legislature's approval
was necessary to place the issue on the November
ballot. The prosecutor's office organized a
campaign called "Fight Back" to promote the tax,
enlisting the support of business, labor, church,
and community leaders. However, the role of the
prosecutor's office was a key element in a
contentious debate in the county legislature. Some
legislators were wary of placing the responsibility
for administering the tax entirely in the hands of
the county prosecutor. The prosecutor's office
itself was wary; it expected to face political
pressures on the funding of local programs. As a
result, the administration of the tax was split
equally ($7 million each) between the Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney and a newly created Fiscal
Commission. The latter consisted of the prosecuting
attorney (as commission chair), the presiding judge
of the circuit court, the director of corrections,
the chief of the Kansas City Police Department, the
chairman of the Eastern Jackson County Drug
Enforcement Task Force (representing the police
departments in the suburban and rural areas of the
county), and the directors of two major drug
treatment facilities: the Samuel Rodgers Community
Health Center and the Swope Parkway Comprehensive
and Mental Health Center.

The county legislature added several other
provisions to the tax. A portion of the funds
earmarked for drug prevention activities was to be
provided under contract to established nonprofit
community organizations. A sunset provision also
was incorporated, calling for the tax to expire
automatically on March 31, 1997. (As noted, the
recent renewal vote has extended the tax through
March 2004.)

The county legislature unanimously passed the
revised measure on September 12, 1989, designating
it as Question No. 1 on the November ballot. In a
separate supporting resolution unanimously adopted
on October 17, the legislature specified the
allocation of tax revenues among eight different
program areas: investigations, prosecution,
deferred prosecution (or drug court), prevention,
corrections, treatment, juvenile court, and circuit
court. The prosecutor was to administer the funds
in the first four areas; the Fiscal Commission was
to take responsibility for the latter four.

Although there was some opposition from taxpayer
organizations that opposed any new tax levy,
Jackson County voters passed the Anti-Drug Sales
Tax with 63 percent approval on November 7, 1989.
The tax became effective on April 1, 1990. The
first distribution of tax proceeds to the county
occurred in June 1990, and the first expenditure of
tax funds for program activities took place in
November 1990, within a year of the referendum
vote.

The passage of an anti-drug tax was a major
political accomplishment, given the acknowledged
risks elected officials take in supporting new
taxes. In this instance, the public recognized that
an effective response to a large and growing
problem would require more than existing available
funding. The compromise engendered by legislative
debates at the State and county levels assured the
support of the major institutional players by
allocating tax proceeds among the key
constituencies--police departments, courts,
corrections, and treatment providers.

Over its first 4 years, the initiative went by the
name Jackson County Anti-Drug Sales Tax, more often
shortened to "drug tax." When Jackson County
Prosecutor Albert Riederer decided not to run for
reelection in November 1992, he was succeeded by
Claire McCaskill, under whose leadership the
program was renamed COMBAT, the COMmunity-Backed
Anti-drug Tax.

COMBAT's Objectives and Allocation of Funds

Objectives. The November 1989 ballot question
stated that the anti-drug sales tax was to be used
"solely for the purpose of investigation and
prosecution of drug and drug-related offenses, and
the incarceration, rehabilitation, treatment, and
judicial processing of adult and juvenile violators
of drug and drug-related offenses.

"The prosecuting attorney's office adopted the
following three-part statement of COMBAT's
objectives in July 1995:

o "Jail dangerous criminals and drug dealers."

o "Treat nonviolent offenders who honestly want to
get off drugs."

o "Prevent children from ever experimenting with
drugs.

"This program strategy recognizes that an effective
battle against drug abuse requires not only strict
law enforcement but also prevention and treatment.
COMBAT's law enforcement aim is to prosecute and
incarcerate those who deal in drugs or who have
committed violent offenses because of their drug
use. For those already engaged in illicit drug use
but who have not committed violent offenses, COMBAT
offers treatment options or other supportive
services that will help users overcome their
dependency. At the most fundamental level, COMBAT
reaches out to young people to preempt the onset of
drug use or to interrupt a potential cycle of
abuse.

Allocation of funds. To serve these multiple
objectives, the county legislature adopted the
allocation of funds, based on projected annual tax
proceeds of $14 million.

To the extent that the 0.25 percent tax rate
designated for COMBAT has yielded annual amounts
somewhat greater than $14 million (about $15.5
million in the most recent year), a supplementary
"grant match fund" was established. (This fund also
receives interest earned on tax proceeds before
they are distributed and any unused program
moneys.) Each year the supplementary proceeds
(moneys above $14 million) are disbursed in two
equal amounts, half to the Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney (primarily for additional
prevention programs) and half to the Fiscal
Commission.

The title "grant match fund" refers to the fact
that these supplementary moneys are distributed
only to grantees seeking a local financial
commitment in order to obtain outside funding from
Federal, State, or private sources. Cumulatively
over the 5-year life of the grant match fund, $6
million has been distributed, leveraging more than
$25 million in additional outside funding from
public agencies and private sources, such as the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

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

Eastern Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force

COMBAT funds have enabled the 13 police departments
of Eastern Jackson County, the communities outside
of Kansas City, to coordinate more closely their
narcotics investigations. The Eastern Jackson
County Drug Enforcement Task Force dates back to
1986, but before COMBAT it had only seven assigned
officers. Small grants and private donations funded
the salaries and expenses of this minimal staff.
Starting in 1990, with annual COMBAT funding of
$1.5 million, the task force expanded, increasing
to 30 officers by April 1991. Additionally, the
task force now receives $325,000 from COMBAT's
grant match fund, leveraging an additional $325,000
in Federal funds.

The task force officers are detailed from the
police departments of Independence, Lee's Summit,
Blue Springs, Grandview, Raytown, and the Jackson
County Sheriff's Department. The police chiefs of
all 13 county departments serve on the task force's
executive board, which meets weekly. An
officer-in-charge directs task force activities.
Staff are organized into three units--an
intelligence unit and two "buy units" that conduct
undercover buy/bust operations. The task force
periodically moves its confidential location to
avoid surveillance.

The funding from COMBAT has enabled the task force
to expand its activity, as indicated by the
dramatic increase between 1990 and 1994 in new
arrests and seizures of drugs, weapons, and money.
(See table below.)

The task force has focused on mid- to upper-level
dealers, thereby targeting larger numbers of
suppliers and users and larger quantities of drugs.
The group's objective is not simply to serve search
warrants and issue arrest warrants but to build
prosecutable cases and put drug rings out of
operation. Officer-in-charge Dennie Jensen reports
that the multijurisdictional effort has clearly
established its presence in these suburban and
rural communities: "We have forced dealers to
change the way they do business."

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

                                    1990             1994

New defendants            133              304

Drugs seized (grams)
  Marijuana               1,588         57,174
  Cocaine                     210         20,383
  Crack cocaine             47         10,409
  Methamphetamine      57          1,699

Weapons seized            30               67

Money seized          $25,683         $176,650

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

COMBAT Management

The Office of the Jackson County Prosecuting
Attorney has overall responsibility for the COMBAT
initiative. The county prosecutor has direct
responsibility for administering half of the tax
proceeds. As chair of the original 7-member Fiscal
Commission, which is now the 10-member COMBAT
Commission, the prosecutor also plays a major role
in administering the other half of the tax funds.

The tax-funded programs under the direct
responsibility of the prosecutor have a full-time
staff consisting of two administrators (the COMBAT
and deputy administrators), three coordinators (for
planning, development, and communications; for
evaluation; and for the drug court; the drug court
coordinator supervises a staff attorney monitoring
the court), and two clerical assistants.

The operations of the COMBAT Commission are managed
by an executive assistant to the prosecutor.
Another staff person, who is supervised in part by
the COMBAT administrator, monitors the commission's
grants to program providers.

Soon after taking office as county prosecutor in
January 1993, Claire McCaskill took the bold step
of hiring as COMBAT administrator a person with
strong public health credentials.3 This was to
ensure a continued emphasis on drug prevention and
treatment programs rather than solely on law
enforcement. Indeed, more than one-third of the
combined sales tax and grant match funds is devoted
to prevention and treatment programs. This
represents a significant shift from the more
typical program mix in which three-fourths or more
of anti-drug funds are devoted to law enforcement
activities.

Eight program areas that receive COMBAT funding are
clustered under three major objectives, each of
which has its own administrative arrangements and
program activities.

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

Community Policing in the Old Northeast
Neighborhood

The Old Northeast area is one of six Kansas City
neighborhoods in which, with COMBAT funding, the
community policing concept has been implemented.
Efforts to reduce drug-related crimes have become
more effective by geographically concentrating the
resources of the police and fire departments, the
prosecutor's office, housing inspectors, and other
public agencies and by enlisting the support of
community groups in crime watch activities. COMBAT
has facilitated this initiative by providing the
resources to create Community Action Network (CAN)
teams.

The CAN team in Old Northeast was established in
March 1994; its focus has been on the Lykins
neighborhood. Of the 34,000 Old Northeast area
residents, about 6,000 live in the 81-block Lykins
area. The median income of Lykins residents
($15,454) is less than one-half of the entire
Kansas City area ($37,738).COMBAT funding supports
the following CAN team activities:

o KCPD officers. The two police officers assigned
to the CAN team establish a visible, uniformed
presence in the neighborhood by walking the beat or
riding patrol on COMBAT-purchased bicycles. These
officers are based in the CAN center, which is
centrally located in the community.

o KCPD Street Narcotics Unit (SNU) and Drug
Enforcement Unit (DEU). The SNU personnel are
assigned geographically to investigate retail-level
drug operations. DEU staff target their efforts on
individuals and groups involved at higher levels of
drug distribution who are supplying neighborhood
drug dealers. Both SNU and DEU make use of
information available from Federal law enforcement
agencies, drug enforcement task forces, and special
investigative squads such as those that focus on
gang involvement.

o Neighborhood prosecutor. A single assistant
prosecuting attorney has the responsibility for
prosecuting the drug cases that come out of the
Lykins area. By maintaining close ties to the
police personnel and residents, the assistant
prosecutor is better able to pursue convictions
with the information obtained from residents and
geographically assigned police personnel.

o Drug Abatement Response Team (DART). Coordinated
by another assistant prosecuting attorney, DART
acts on confidential citizen reports, received
through the DART telephone hotline, of suspicious
activity at drug houses. Once a target location is
identified, fire and housing code inspections are
conducted. The property owner is notified of any
code violations, which, if not corrected, can
result in the closing of the building.

o Mobile crime watch coordinator. COMBAT provides
the part-time salary of a citizen anti-crime
coordinator, a resident who organizes block-level
crime watch groups and relays information to the
police and prosecutor staff.

o Neighborhood mobilizer. Project NeighborHOOD, a
COMBAT grantee since March 1992, assigns a trained
mobilizer to serve as the link between drug-using
individuals and drug treatment providers; the
project provides counseling and case management
services to those who need treatment.

These members of the CAN team, plus others not
supported through COMBAT, meet once a week to
identify target locations and plan strategies.
Monthly meetings are held separately with the
landlords association and with residents. In its
first year of operation (March 1994-March 1995),
the CAN team identified 64 targets and successfully
acted on 45 of these, including 37 closings of drug
houses.

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

"Jail Dangerous Criminals and Drug Dealers"

COMBAT's first objective has a traditional law
enforcement focus, emphasizing police
investigations, prosecution, and jail.

Police investigations. The $3 million in COMBAT
funds earmarked for police investigations are
divided equally between the Kansas City Police
Department (KCPD) and the Eastern Jackson County
Drug Enforcement Task Force. In December 1990, KCPD
created 30 new positions with its allocation.
COMBAT now supports 33 positions in the department,
including 27 law enforcement personnel and 6
civilians. These law enforcement personnel comprise
27 out of a total of 267 positions in the Narcotics
and Vice Division, most of whom are assigned to the
Street Narcotics Unit (SNU), which handles the
investigation of small-scale street-level drug
operations. The others are assigned to the Drug
Enforcement Unit (DEU), which handles mid- and
upper-level drug dealers. In addition to supporting
these police personnel costs, COMBAT funds have
been used by KCPD to purchase crime lab equipment
and a drug dog used by DEU in interdiction activity
at airport terminals and bus and rail stations.

Half of COMBAT funds earmarked for police
investigations goes to the Eastern Jackson County
Drug Enforcement Task Force, which includes the
police departments of the county's 13 smaller
cities and the sheriff's department. (See "Eastern
Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force.") This
is a trained multijurisdictional task force that
pursues individuals and organizations engaged in
the distribution of illicit drugs in the suburban
and rural areas of the county.

Community policing. COMBAT funds also have enabled
the KCPD to implement a successful community
policing program in six selected neighborhoods of
Kansas City. (See "Community Policing in the Old
Northeast Neighborhood.") Community action network
(CAN) centers have been established in these
neighborhoods to bring law enforcement efforts and
drug treatment services closer to residents and
community groups. Each CAN center is staffed by two
assigned police officers, city housing and fire
code inspectors, and a neighborhood coordinator,
who meet weekly to plan the CAN team's response to
reported drug activity. The resulting increased
activity in closing drug houses and arresting drug
users and dealers has encouraged residents to
become more vigilant, enabling police first to
stabilize and then to reduce street-level drug
trafficking and drug-related crime.

COMBAT funds also have supported the Jackson County
Drug Abatement Response Team (DART). DART is a
collaborative county-city-community effort to close
drug houses. The DART team is composed of staff
from the Jackson County prosecutor's office
(including an assistant prosecutor and four support
staff members), city housing and fire code
inspectors, members of the Kansas City Police
Department, and law enforcement officers from
county and municipal police agencies representing
Eastern Jackson County.

Following a citizen report of suspected drug
activity, the appropriate law enforcement agency
first investigates the illegal operation. Housing
and fire code inspections then are conducted at the
property. If warranted, the property is vacated and
posted as unsafe for human occupancy. The property
owner is notified of any code violations and must
bring the property up to code before it legally can
be reoccupied. As a final remedy, DART can pursue
public nuisance and forfeiture actions against a
property owner.

Prosecution. The $1.5 million in COMBAT funds
allocated to prosecution enabled the creation, in
November 1990, of a criminal prosecution unit that
handles only drug cases. This staff unit, which
includes 16 attorneys, 3 investigators, and 10
support staff, has additionally adopted a
"neighborhood-based approach" to prosecution. Each
assistant prosecuting attorney in the unit is
responsible for cases in an assigned neighborhood,
working with the neighborhood-assigned police
officers, citizen crime watch groups, schools,
churches, and other community organizations. By
making use of information provided through these
channels, prosecutors are able to prepare stronger
cases and obtain more convictions. As residents
have seen these results, they have become more
involved in crime watch and crime reporting.

Circuit court. In April 1991, the circuit court
used COMBAT funds to create "Docket O," a separate
docket dedicated to drug cases. These funds have
enabled the court to appoint private attorneys to
represent drug defendants and have prevented the
development of a case backlog. Since the 1990
inception of COMBAT, the number of drug and
drug-related cases filed annually by the
prosecutor's office has more than tripled. This
increase would otherwise have overwhelmed the
court, especially the Office of the Public
Defender. Indigent defendants are represented by
private members of the bar who receive appointments
through a competitive selection process. COMBAT
provides funding to support the salaries of these
private attorneys.

Corrections. COMBAT funds earmarked for corrections
($2.5 million annually) have accumulated in the
program's trust fund while the county executive and
county legislature have considered a strategy for
expansion of the county's jail facilities, as
mandated by Federal court order. The county
legislature now has endorsed the concept of
developing a new correctional facility. Plans call
for construction of a 124-bed
minimum-/medium-security annex adjacent to the
current facility, which itself will be expanded by
70 beds. County general revenue and the earmarked
COMBAT allocation will fund the estimated $16
million construction cost.

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

Operations of the Jackson County Drug Court

In October 1993, Jackson County established its
drug court program, funded by a $1.5 million annual
COMBAT grant. Nonviolent drug offenders can have
their criminal charges dismissed by the drug court
judge by successfully completing an intensive 12-
to 18-month program of counseling and treatment.

Nonviolent defendants are offered the opportunity
to participate in drug court on the same day as
their arrest and arraignment. To be eligible, a
defendant must have a substance abuse problem and
generally no prior violent convictions. Those who
volunteer for the program enter a 3-week assessment
phase that includes meetings with a counselor and
diversion manager, an addiction severity test,
stress reduction sessions 5 times per week, and
urinalysis tests at least 3 times per week.

Participants then enter a year-long treatment
regimen. Activities include individual and group
counseling, support group meetings, family
counseling, and community service. Stress reduction
sessions, urinalysis tests, and supervision
continue on a less frequent basis, and individuals
pay a small participant fee ($5 minimum). In the
latter stages, participants receive education,
skills training, family support, transportation
assistance, and referrals to other counseling
services. Throughout this period, the defendant
appears periodically before the drug court judge
for status hearings. The emphasis is on maintaining
a supportive, nonadversarial approach that
encourages success. Relapses, an expected and
common occurrence, can lengthen the treatment
period to 18 months or more. A system of graduated
sanctions is used to promote compliance.

About 400 defendants currently participating in the
program are at various stages of assessment,
stabilization, and aftercare. Since the program's
inception, about 80 defendants have graduated from
drug court, with only one rearrest among them. On a
monthly basis, 30 to 35 enter the program, 5 to 10
exit voluntarily, 15 to 20 must leave the program
for noncompliance, and 5 to 10 successfully
graduate (the compliance rate ranges from 50 to 70
percent).

The Jackson County Drug Court recently received a
Justice Department enhancement grant to establish a
day-report center that will offer client services
in one location. This is expected to increase the
client success rate by reducing transportation
worries. In a separate development, the Justice
Department's Director of Drug Court Programs now
intends to use the Jackson County Drug Court as a
model for localities that receive drug court
planning grants.

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

"Treat Nonviolent Offenders Who Honestly Want to
Get Off Drugs"

On the other hand, to keep nonviolent drug
offenders out of the correction systems, the
following program objective aims to stop them from
using illicit drugs.

Treatment programs. Currently 28 nonprofit
treatment organizations receive COMBAT funding. The
treatment funds are distributed through a
competitive process administered by the COMBAT
Commission. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) are
issued, proposals are reviewed, and funding
decisions are made on a 1-year renewable basis. In
order to maintain a stable network of providers,
the COMBAT Commission normally has renewed funding
for each provider upon reapplication and peer
review. The COMBAT allocation to treatment programs
includes not only the $2.5 million earmarked
funding but also $750,000 in grant match funds. In
addition to providing grant matches for direct
services (such as to substance-abusing pregnant
women), they also are given as research grants (on
such issues as crack babies and families with
drug-dependent mothers) and as training grants for
substance abuse professionals and counselors.

Juvenile court. COMBAT funds have increased by
about 10 percent the resources available to the
Juvenile Division of Family Court (or "juvenile
court").4 These funds have been used to support
residential services, additional probation officers
and other court staff, and drug testing (with
referral to appropriate treatment) of all youths in
detention.

With COMBAT funds, the juvenile court established a
system of school-based deputy juvenile officers
(DJOs) in the suburban public schools of Jackson
County in April 1991. Ten schools, including junior
and senior high schools, participate in the
program. In each school, a probation officer
becomes part of the school staff and spends 2 days
a week providing onsite counseling for children on
probation as well as conducting inservice teacher
training, drug education to students, and parent
education for caregivers of children in the
schools. Five DJO positions are funded by COMBAT;
each officer spends time every week onsite at two
schools.

Drug court. Established in October 1993 with COMBAT
funds, the Jackson County Drug Court has been cited
as one of the most innovative and successful of
approximately 40 drug court programs throughout the
country.5 First-time offenders convicted of
nonviolent drug possession or a drug-related
offense (e.g., shoplifting or burglary to support
drug purchases) are offered the opportunity to
participate in drug court as an alternative to
incarceration. The aims of the program are to
reduce drug usage, reserve jail space for more
serious offenders, and promote public safety
through reduced recidivism. After screening to
ensure the participants will not represent a threat
to public safety, they undergo a 12- to 18-month
period of treatment, which includes counseling,
stress reduction and rehabilitation sessions,
community service, and periodic court appearances
to monitor compliance.

For those who successfully complete the program,
the charge is dismissed and removed from their
criminal record. (See "Operations of the Jackson
County Drug Court.") The initiative is a
collaborative effort that includes the prosecuting
attorney's office, circuit court, Missouri State
Department of Corrections (Probation and Parole),
Office of the Public Defender, the Defense Bar, and
the Kansas City Police Department.

"Prevent Children from Ever Experimenting with
Drugs"

The third objective focuses on preventing youths
from ever becoming involved in the criminal justice
system. COMBAT currently supports 33 community
nonprofit organizations that operate drug
prevention programs. These funds are distributed,
like the treatment funds, through a competitive RFP
process, which began in March 1991. Written
proposals and, in some instances, oral
presentations are made to the staff of the
prosecutor's office during the summer. Proposal
evaluations are submitted to an 18-member community
review panel. The panel's recommendations go to the
prosecutor, who in turn makes recommendations to
the county legislature for the formal appropriation
of contract funds. Grants are made on a 1-year
renewable basis, with the fiscal year running from
November 1 through October 31.

One of the prevention activities supported by
COMBAT grant match funds is the Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program in the
public schools. The Jackson County D.A.R.E. program
includes all 12 county school districts. This
federally supported program, which has counterparts
in school districts nationwide, involves inschool
drug prevention training conducted by law
enforcement officers in fifth-grade classrooms.

Early Efforts to Improve COMBAT

COMBAT has enjoyed strong and continued public
support since its enactment, as evidenced by the 71
percent approval of the referendum question to
renew the tax in November 1995. Nonetheless, by the
time of this referendum to extend COMBAT funding,
there was also a referendum to change the way
COMBAT operated because of criticism the program
had received. Early criticism of COMBAT involved
several issues. For example, there were concerns
that residents of Eastern Jackson County did not
receive a commensurate share of tax-funded program
services. Prosecutor McCaskill countered by noting
the severity of drug problems in Kansas City--and
the lack of resources to deal with them--
explaining, "We were in triage in the urban core."
COMBAT staff also pointed out that funding for
police investigations was divided equally between
Kansas City and Eastern Jackson County, and nearly
all proposals received from prevention or treatment
providers in the eastern county area had been
funded.

One ever-present risk to COMBAT, with its locally
controlled revenue source and sunset provision, is
that taxpayers might decide the initiative no
longer deserves their continued support. For the
prosecutor's staff, this has placed a premium on
ensuring program integrity and avoiding any
appearance of misused funds.

A special advisory board to the Jackson County
legislature was appointed by the legislature in
February 1993 to review the program at the midpoint
of its 7-year initial authorization. In its
December 1993 report, the board commended COMBAT
for implementing innovative programs and for
maintaining fiscal integrity but criticized the
program's lack of a comprehensive communitywide
anti-drug strategy. The prosecutor's office took
responsive action; a July 1995 COMBAT progress
report to the county legislature included a clear
statement of the program's goals for law
enforcement, treatment, and prevention and the
program's achievements in these areas.

The special advisory board and others also took
issue with the role of the original Fiscal
Commission, asserting that some commission members
had a conflict of interest in both deciding on the
distribution of COMBAT funds and in receiving those
same funds. Program staff responded by saying that
the only discretion exercised by the Fiscal
Commission was in grants to treatment providers; a
potential conflict of interest thus existed only
for the two commission members who represented
health centers providing treatment. The special
advisory board called for creation of a
"community-based coalition" to formulate COMBAT's
strategy against substance abuse. The members of
this coalition would include representatives from
community grassroots organizations, schools,
churches, youth organizations, and the bar
association as well as from law enforcement
officials and other government agency heads.

These concerns prompted the county legislature in
September 1995 to authorize changes in the Fiscal
Commission in conjunction with the November 1995
ballot question to renew the COMBAT sales tax for 7
years. The referendum question also called for
appointment of a 10-member COMBAT Commission to
replace the original Fiscal Commission. The new
commission included seven voting members
(representatives of treatment, prevention, and
business organizations or agencies that neither
receive nor seek COMBAT funding) and three
ex-officio, nonvoting members (the prosecuting
attorney, the KCPD chief, and the chairman of the
Eastern Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task
Force). This commission is now charged with the
responsibility of making recommendations in the
areas of prevention and treatment.

Monitoring Performance and Ensuring Accountability

The prosecuting attorney's office has focused
considerable attention over the past several years
on developing data systems for assessing the needs
of program clients and monitoring the effectiveness
of program services.

Uniform assessment document. For treatment
providers, COMBAT has worked to develop an
automated capability to assess the needs of each
client served by a COMBAT-funded provider. For the
network of treatment providers, this uniform
assessment document was implemented in August 1995
after a 6-month pilot test. At the intake
interview, treatment staff administer a 1-hour
addiction severity questionnaire to each client.
For one of every six clients, randomly selected,
followup interviews will be conducted 6 and 12
months after intake. At each interview session, the
addiction severity questionnaire will again be
administered.

The data collected in this process will have many
uses: to profile client populations, to refer
clients more consistently to appropriate treatment
options, to reduce duplication of effort as clients
enter and reenter treatment services, to gauge the
effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies,
to hold providers accountable for their treatment
choices, and to enable COMBAT to monitor grantee
operations for contract renewal decisions. The
treatment data base will complement arrest data,
the only previous source available for tracking
clients.6

Uniform contracts. For prevention providers, COMBAT
staff have worked to establish a common data
collection system. Since January 1995, each COMBAT
contract has required the collection of data on all
clients served. The system provides a common basis
for profiling the at-risk population, for
identifying and targeting high-risk individuals,
for coordinating prevention efforts carried out by
private nonprofit providers and law enforcement
agencies, and for monitoring program operations.
The data base now includes more than 3,000 persons
served by the network of COMBAT prevention
providers.

Program evaluation. The National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) is planning an evaluation of the
COMBAT program, funded jointly by NIJ and a Kansas
City partner, the Kauffman Foundation. An outside
evaluator will be selected through a competitive
RFP.

Signs of COMBAT Success

Although an objective evaluation of the program
awaits completion of the NIJ/Kauffman Foundation
study, and there is no empirical basis for
attributing to COMBAT the recently observed
downward trend in drug use and drug-related crime
in Jackson County, the following descriptive
statistics on COMBAT's first 5 years of operation
are nonetheless noteworthy:

o More than 100,000 students have participated in
drug-abuse prevention programs.

o Over 2,200 drug houses have been raided.

o Over 1,200 drug cases have been prosecuted
through the work of the Eastern Jackson County Drug
Enforcement Task Force.

o More than 700 drug-addicted individuals receive
treatment each month.

A significant accomplishment of COMBAT has been the
partnerships forged among agencies and across
geographic boundaries. Jackson County Prosecuting
Attorney Claire McCaskill refers to this as a
process of "cross-pollination." McCaskill credits
COMBAT with focusing attention on community needs
and "placing the prosecutor in the role of
community leader." The sales tax revenue has put
the prosecutor in the enviable position of having
new resources, although McCaskill sees this as a
"double-edged sword"; with the new funds has come
the need to make difficult choices on which
programs to fund and which not to fund. However, as
McCaskill said following passage of the tax renewal
question in November 1995, "Residents like the fact
that the tax has local control. They don't want to
send all their money to Washington and hope that it
comes back."

COMBAT Administrator James Nunnelly also notes the
"cross-culturalization" that has been achieved with
law enforcement agencies, the providers of
treatment and prevention services, and neighborhood
residents. By promoting a greater sensitivity and
responsiveness to neighborhood concerns, COMBAT has
served as a catalyst in bringing groups together
that heretofore went about their work
independently--and sometimes at cross purposes.
Police would encourage citizens to report drug
activity, but investigators and prosecutors were so
backlogged, they could not act promptly on the
information provided by residents. The information
quickly lost its value in pursuing arrests or
prosecutions, and residents became disillusioned
with the police and the courts.

By increasing staff resources enough to remove the
backlogs and by concentrating efforts on specific
neighborhoods or other geographically defined
areas, COMBAT has shown local residents that
neighborhood vigilance and cooperation with the
police and prosecutors can yield results. As
"success breeds success," residents have become
even more inclined to report suspicious activity.
As drug houses are closed and street trafficking is
controlled, the incidence of drug activity and
drug-related crime in the neighborhood has been
stabilized as a necessary first step to improving
the physical and economic conditions of the
community.

Better coordination among prevention programs and
treatment providers also has occurred through the
biweekly meetings that COMBAT staff conduct with
the organizations that are granted COMBAT moneys.
Attendance at these meetings is monitored as a
condition of receiving funds. Those providing
prevention activities can better determine whether
they are reaching the relevant "at-risk"
populations; treatment providers can better make
referrals of clients and can share information
about promising treatment approaches.

Most importantly, COMBAT has succeeded in
leveraging the internal resources of the community
itself--the cooperation and vigilance of residents-
-just as the grant match funds have succeeded in
leveraging external funds. The "empowerment"
provided by community policing and neighborhood
prosecution has paid large dividends in securing
the continued support of local residents. As
Reverend James Tindall, chairman of the Jackson
County Legislature has commented, the ingredients
most responsible for the program's success have
been the commitment and "caring attitude" that
program staff, participating public agencies, and
private providers have shown toward the community.
Community residents demanded action and then taxed
themselves to fund it. COMBAT has now delivered,
protecting those at risk of using drugs, assisting
nonviolent drug users in obtaining treatment, and
bringing violent offenders and drug dealers to
justice.

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

Notes

1. "COMBAT: Progress Report to the Jackson County
Legislature," Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,
Jackson County, Missouri, 17 July 1995:1.

2. These examples of revenue sources earmarked for
anti-drug programs were provided by Bob Anderson of
the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Directors and Lee Dixon of the
Intergovernmental Health Policy Project at George
Washington University.

3. James Nunnelly, who became the COMBAT
administrator in March 1993, had been a public
health administrator for 27 years, most recently as
chief administrator of Kansas City's Samuel Rodgers
Community Health Center. There he successfully
implemented a drug treatment clinic and obtained
funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for
Project NeighborHOOD, a community-based outreach
effort to bring substance abusers into treatment
programs.

4. The family court handles cases in a wide range
of domestic matters, including divorce, child
support, custody, visitation, and domestic
violence. The Juvenile Division (or juvenile court)
handles delinquencies and offenses committed by
minors, including illegal drug use.

5. One of the earliest drug courts was established
in 1989 in Dade County (Miami), Florida. This
initiative was described in another Program Focus
prepared by Peter Finn and Andrea K. Newlyn,
Miami's "Drug Court": A Different Approach,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, June 1993. For a
review of drug court programs throughout the
country, see Drug Courts: Information on a New
Approach to Address Drug-Related Crime, U.S.
General Accounting Office, GAO/GGD-95-159BR, May
1995.

6. At the national level, the Health and Human
Services Department's Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment has expressed interest in broader
adoption of this tool, which was designed to
generally be applicable under varying program
services (e.g., battered women's shelters or
juvenile facilities) and varying client populations
(e.g., by gender, race, and age).

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

About This Study

This document was written by Gregory Mills, senior
associate at Abt Associates Inc. The findings and
conclusions of the research reported here are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

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

All photos courtesy of the Office of the Jackson
County Prosecuting Attorney.

On the cover: A meeting of the Old Northeast
neighborhood's CAN team, which includes the
assistant prosecutor, uniformed police officers,
and neighborhood crime watch leaders. 

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

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

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

Selected NIJ Publications About Drug Abuse and
Community Policing

Listed below are some NIJ publications and videos
related to issues of drug abuse and community
policing. These products are free, except as
indicated, and can be obtained from the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service: telephone 800-
851-3420, e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org, or write
NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000.

These documents also can be downloaded through the
NCJRS Bulletin Board System or at the NCJRS
Anonymous FTP site in ASCII or graphic formats.
They can be viewed online at the Justice
Information Center World Wide Web site. Call NCJRS
for more information.

Please note that when free publications are out of
stock, they are available as photocopies or through
interlibrary loan.

Drug Abuse

Blumstein, Alfred, Ph.D., Youth Violence, Guns, and
Illicit Drug Markets, VHS videotape, 1995, NCJ
152235, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign
countries $24.

The Drug Court Movement, NIJ Update, 1995, FS
000093.

Drugs: Treating Offenders, NIJ Crime File
Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123673, $17 plus postage and
handling.

Drugs: Youth Crime, NIJ Crime File Videotape, 1990,
NCJ 123674, $17 plus postage and handling.

Finn, Peter, and Andrea K. Newlyn, Miami's "Drug
Court": A Different Approach, NIJ Program Focus,
1993, NCJ 142412.

Goldkamp, John, Assessing the Impact of Dade
County's Drug Court, NIJ Research in Brief, 1993,
NCJ 145302.

Hepburn, John R., Ph.D., C. Wayne Johnston, and
Scott Rogers, Do Drugs. Do Time: An Evaluation of
the Maricopa County Demand Reduction Program, NIJ
Research in Brief, 1994, NCJ 149016.

Inciardi, James, Ph.D., A Corrections-Based
Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment, VHS
videotape, 1995, NCJ 152692, U.S. $19, Canada and
other foreign countries $24.

Kennedy, David M., Controlling the Drug Trade in
Tampa, Florida, NIJ Program Focus, 1993, NCJ
139963.

Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness of Treatment
for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice
Supervision, NIJ Research Report, 1995, NCJ 157642.

Weingart, Saul N., Francis X. Hartmann, and David
Osborne, Case Studies of Community Anti-Drug
Efforts, NIJ Research in Brief, 1994, NCJ
149316.Community Policing

Community Policing

Community Policing: Issues and Practices Around the
World, 1993, NCJ 111428.

Community Policing Strategies, NIJ Research
Preview, 1995, FS 000126.

Goldstein, Herman, The New Policing: Confronting
Complexity, NIJ Research in Brief, 1993, NCJ
145157.

Managing Innovation in Policing: The Untapped
Potential of the Middle Manager, NIJ Research
Preview, 1995, FS 000130.

Rosenbaum, Dennis P., et al., Community Responses
to Drug Abuse: A Program Evaluation, NIJ Research
Report, 1994, NCJ 145945.

Roth, Jeffrey A., and Mark H. Moore, Reducing
Violent Crimes and Intentional Injuries, NIJ
Research in Brief, 1995, NCJ 156089.

Sadd, Susan, and Randolph M. Grinc, Implementation
Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative
Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities, NIJ
Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157932.

Sherman, Lawrence W., Ph.D., Reducing Gun Violence:
Community Policing Against Gun Crime, VHS
videotape, 1995, NCJ 153730, U.S. $19, Canada and
other foreign countries $24.

Skogan, Wesley, Ph.D., Community Policing in
Chicago, Fact or Fiction?, VHS videotape, 1995, NCJ
153273, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign
countries $24. A summary of the presentation is
available as a Research Preview, Community Policing
in Chicago: Year Two, 1995, FS 000105.

Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Timothy N. Oettmeier, Ph.D.,
Evaluating Patrol Officer Performance Under
Community Policing: The Houston Experience, NIJ
Research Report, 1994, NCJ 142462.

Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Skogan, Wesley K., Community
Policing in Madison: Quality from the Inside Out,
NIJ Research Report, 1993, NCJ 144390.