Title: Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Findings
and Results From State and Local Program Evaluations.
Series: Monograph
Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Published: April 2000
Subject: Criminal Justice System, Criminal Justice--general
104 pages
233,000 bytes

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

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
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Daniel Marcus
Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary
Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

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

For grant and funding information contact
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

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.

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

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Findings and
Results From State and Local Program Evaluations

Effective Programs Monograph No. 2

April 2000

NCJ 178936

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

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 all states and local communities are facing. Real progress can
be achieved only if we demonstrate and confirm "what works," so we can all
profit from the impact of more than 10 years of federal funding through the
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Formula Grant Program. In 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 on
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 criminal justice programs. BJA's handbooks and technical
assistance help to provide a systematic, disciplined framework that focuses 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, Creating a New Criminal Justice
System for the 21st Century: Findings and Results From State and Local
Program Evaluations. It is the second in a series of reports to highlight and
document approaches and results of evaluations funded at state and local levels.
The first report, Improving the Nation's Criminal Justice System: Findings and
Results From State and Local Program Evaluations, Effective Programs
Monograph No. 1, was published in December 1997. Six demonstration
projects affecting many components of the criminal justice system were the
focal point of the evaluations presented in the previous monograph. Having
been identified as effective, these programs have become models for other
states and localities to replicate. 

This monograph has been produced to make proven state and local programs
more accessible to planners and practitioners alike. The document is divided
into two parts. Part One provides descriptions and evaluations of programs in
seven states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, Oregon, Illinois, Utah,
and Oklahoma. Part Two is a summary of evaluations of state and local
multijurisdictional task forces funded by BJA.

Future reports in the series will continue to communicate the results of strong
federal, state, and local partnerships that are enhancing the role of evaluation,
building excellent evaluation systems, and reporting on the impact of efforts to
combat crime in America. BJA is proud of its work of identifying effective drug
abuse and violent crime prevention programs and communicating lessons
learned at state and local levels that can be shared nationally to ensure that the
most promising approaches have a broad impact. 

Nancy E. Gist 
Director 

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


Acknowledgments

This second monograph on effective state and local program evaluation is a
product of a cooperative effort by the states and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance as part of the State Evaluation Development Program, 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:

o Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

o Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.

o New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General.

o Oregon Department of State Police, Criminal Justice Services Division.

o Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

o Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.

o Oklahoma District Attorneys Council.

The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document under
the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. JRSA staff who worked on
this publication, under the supervision of Michael Connelly, Director of Special
Projects, include Kate Ahern, Craig Cussimanio, Nancy Michel, Laura Parisi,
Marylinda Stawasz, and Kate Wagner.

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

Contents

Part One: State Program Evaluations

o State and Local Evaluations and the Effective Programs Initiative

o Pennsylvania: School-Based Probation

o Virginia: Detention Center Incarceration Program

o New Hampshire: Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program


o Oregon: The Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program

o Illinois: Homicide and Violent Crime Strike Force in Madison and St. Clair
Counties

o Utah: The Utah Day Reporting Center--Success With Alternative
Incarceration

o Oklahoma: Drug Court Program

o References

Part Two: Multijurisdictional Task Force Evaluation

o Multijurisdictional Task Forces: Synthesis of State and Local Evaluation
Findings

o Multijurisdictional Evaluation Findings

o References

Appendix A

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

Sources for Further Information

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

Part One: State Program Evaluations 

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 50
states and 6 territories, BJA can account for the efforts of programs funded by
its grants and add to the knowledge of what works and what does not work
throughout the criminal justice system. 

BJA relies on data and the results of research and evaluation to monitor
program development under the discretionary program and provide guidance
and model programs under the formula and block grant programs. BJA uses
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 second volume
highlighting innovative state and local programs. 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 state and local levels can be shared nationally to ensure that
the most promising approaches 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 state and local agencies are actively
funding, implementing, and evaluating a broad range of programs to deal with
drug abuse and violent crime. 

Enhancing state and local assessment and evaluation capabilities is a very high
priority. The success of federal, state, and local partnerships yielded many
results within the states. The Effective Programs Initiative is designed to develop
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
informing the public about how federal dollars are spent. Evaluation requires
establishing new partnerships among funding agencies, program managers, and
evaluators. No longer the sole domain of academic researchers, evaluation is
making a real difference 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. 

In response to the Attorney General's charge to "find out what works and
spread the word," BJA began this new initiative with the goal of creating a
mechanism for enhancing the design, implementation, measurement, evaluation,
and dissemination of information on programs in high-priority program areas.

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.

By identifying effective state and local criminal justice programs, practices, and
products and disseminating this information to policymakers and practitioners,
BJA will help to improve the criminal justice system at the national level.
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 assessment and evaluation results from the 56 laboratories (50
states and 6 territories) put in place under the Byrne Formula Grant Program
are the products of this initiative.

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

By identifying effective state and local criminal justice programs, practices, and
products . . . BJA will help improve the criminal justice system at the national
level.

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

See appendix A, Identifying Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines
and Criteria for the Nomination of Effective Programs, for instructions on
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 that have been made in combating violent crime and drug abuse
through the use of federal funds. 

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

A program development model that tests innovative state and local ideas in
action and then shares the information gained with the broadest audience has
proved promising in discovering what works and what does not work at state
and local levels.

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

Pennsylvania: School-Based Probation

This summary was adapted from the report School-Based Probation in
Pennsylvania, which presents evaluation research conducted by David S.
Metzger, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, and Danielle Tobin-Fiore, B.S., Project
Coordinator, the University of Pennsylvania Center for Studies of Addiction.

School-based probation (SBP) is an approach to supervising youth that shifts
the primary location of probation operations to the school environment. The
first SBP program was established in 1990 in Lehigh County with pilot funding
provided by the Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC). Since its inception,
the program has expanded rapidly, supported by grants from the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). By the end of 1995, SBP
programs were in place in more than 40 counties.

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

The SBP program was developed in response to the recognized need for closer
communication between probation officers and school staff. 

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

Program Overview

Traditionally, juvenile probation officers in Pennsylvania have been based in
county offices, often located in the county courthouse. Under this model,
juveniles are seen by their probation officers in the county office, at home or in
school during periodic visits, or in various other community locations.
Consequently, contact and "supervision" most often occur in brief, planned
encounters with defined purposes. 

The SBP program was developed in response to the recognized need for closer
communication between probation officers and school staff. Although the shift
in location to the school environment is rather simple, it has significant "systems"
implications. SBP involves the integration of the juvenile justice system with the
educational system at the local level and is believed to enhance both.

Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of the program are to:

o Reduce disciplinary referrals in school.

o Reduce the frequency and length of detentions.

o Improve attendance and academic performance.

o Decrease dropout rates.

o Reduce recidivism and out-of-home placements resulting from delinquent
behavior. 

Program Activities/Components

SBP is a community-focused approach in which a juvenile probation officer is
housed in the school building to provide direct supervision of juvenile offenders
on probation. This allows the officer to spend more time on the case and less
time traveling and doing intake paperwork. The configuration provides more
contact with the offender's family and gives the probation officer more
involvement in the student's life and the opportunity to routinely observe the
youth in his or her peer group and social environment.

Two basic strategies are used by probation officers to manage cases assigned
to SBP--single case management and dual case management. In the single case
management approach, completion of all work required for an assigned case is
the responsibility of the school-based officer. In the dual approach, the
responsibility for the case is shared with other probation officers; the division of
labor is intended to allow the school-based officer to remain in the school while
"nonsupervision" activities are completed by other probation staff.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

The overall objective of the SPB program evaluation was to build a foundation
upon which future experimental studies, designed to objectively evaluate
program outcomes, could be constructed. To this end, a series of descriptive
studies were completed between January 1996 and July 1997.

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

The overall objective of the SPB program evaluation was to build a foundation
upon which future experimental studies, designed to objectively evaluate
program outcomes, could be constructed.

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

Phase I

The first phase of the evaluation focused on the production of a demographic
profile of the youth who had been assigned to SBP. Data from existing PCCD
SBP reporting forms were linked with the JCJC statistical card database,
allowing the profile to include both demographic and arrest data.

Descriptions of cases assigned to SBP were derived from SBP reporting forms
compiled for youth who completed probation in 1993, 1994, and 1995--4,159
cases from 31 counties. All PCCD-funded SBP programs are expected to
forward completed forms to PCCD annually on all youth completing probation
during the reporting period. Between 1993 and 1995, 43 counties had been
awarded grants to support 5,398 cases.

The SBP reporting forms include basic identifying and demographic information
(e.g., name, gender, race, date of birth, date of assignment to SBP) as well as
performance characteristics such as school attendance, academic performance,
in-school and out-of-school suspensions, and enrollment status at the end of
SBP.

A database was created from all valid forms received from PCCD. To ensure
the integrity of the database, several steps were completed in the review of the
form and during the entry processes. Prior to data entry, each form was
screened for completeness, legibility, and validity (i.e., that values fell within
valid ranges). All omissions and notations were marked and, when possible,
corrected. Data from these forms were then entered into two separate data files
and cross-checked for accuracy. All mismatched entries were identified,
inspected, and, when possible, rectified. Approximately 694 forms from 170
cases were not able to be entered into the database. (The majority of these
were from one county that submitted forms on a quarterly basis for all active
cases.) Forms on 4,159 cases were received; of these, 3,913 (94 percent)
were determined to be valid and were entered into the database for subsequent
analyses. The breakdown by year was: 555 (14 percent) of the cases were
assigned in 1993, 1,982 (51 percent) in 1994, and 1,376 (35 percent) in 1995. 

A number of cases from counties that did not return valid reporting forms were
omitted from the database. Thus, analysis of the data that were included should
be interpreted with some caution because of the possibility of selection bias.
These data did, however, represent 93 percent of cases and collectively formed
the largest existing database on juveniles assigned to SBP; as such, the data
provide an opportunity to gain some important insights into the characteristics of
the youth assigned to SBP in Pennsylvania.

While the descriptive data noted above provide information on the
demographic characteristics of the youth served by SBP programs, they do not
address the important issue surrounding the nature of the offenses that brought
the juveniles into the system--are the charges in cases assigned to SBP
programs different from those assigned to other forms of probation? To
compare the criminal justice characteristics of SBP cases with the
characteristics of the cases assigned to "traditional" probation, data from the
SBP reporting forms were matched with data from the "statistical card"
database. A form known as the statistical card must be completed for each
youth who enters the Juvenile Court System in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; it contains information on the youth's involvement with the
juvenile court system, including the nature of the offense that brought him or her
into the SBP program. The form is completed by the county staff and
forwarded to the Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research for entry
into a uniform database that includes important information regarding charges
and dispositions for more than 30,000 cases annually. 

The matching process was complicated by several factors, but most significantly
by the lack of a uniform identification number on both the statistical card and
the PCCD form. This necessitated scanning by name. Minor differences in
spelling or the use of different versions of first names, errors in data entry, and
other differences between the two databases further contributed to the
difficulties in matching, even by name. Given these challenges involved in
achieving matches between the two databases and the size of the statistical card
databases, the search was restricted to the 1993 database, the first year of the
program. A total of 451 cases in the statistical card database were matched to
SBP cases, which represented 81 percent of the total number of 1993 SBP
cases with valid PCCD forms. 


Phase II

In the second phase of the evaluation, site visits were conducted to develop an
operational understanding of the programs delivering SBP in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The goal of these site visits was to better
understand how programs differ and to help identify specific program features
that may affect the youth they serve. To accomplish this goal, comprehensive
interviews were completed during site visits scheduled between March and July
1996.

Each county that had been implementing the program for at least 1 year was
scheduled for a site visit. This resulted in visits to 29 (89 percent) counties with
PCCD-funded SBP programs operating for more than 1 year. With input from
the project's technical consultants and advisory board, semistructured interview
guidelines were developed for each of the three respondent groups: probation
officers, school administrators, and juveniles assigned to SBP. Each interview
was designed to collect both objective information about program operations
and subjective data regarding perceptions of program performance. The
interviews were conducted by technical consultants and a team of six
interviewers; the latter participants were probation officers who were selected
on the basis of their experience and training. Prior to the onsite visits, the
interviewers participated in a 1-day training session during which each interview
item was reviewed and discussed to assess its intent and the method of
questioning.

In addition to being asked about how they spent their time and what type of
case management system they used, probation officers were also asked about
how their role was perceived by others in their work environment--school
faculty, administration, their cases, the parents and guardians of their cases, and
the community at large. Officers were asked to select the role that best
described their view of how they were seen by members of these other
constituency groups. Officers also assessed their own roles. The interviews
concluded with a series of questions regarding the officers' views of the
effectiveness of the SBP program in four key areas--academic performance,
school attendance, delinquent behavior, and disciplinary referrals (in-school and
out-of-school suspensions).

School administrators selected for interviews were those who worked most
closely with the SBP officers and thus had responsibility for and familiarity with
the program in their school. The administrators were asked to assess the range
of involvement of the officers, the performance of the program, and the
effectiveness of the program in the same four areas as the SBP officers.

A total of 111 youth assigned to school-based probation were interviewed
during the site visits. Students completing these interviews were randomly
selected onsite by the interviewers from a list supplied by the probation officer
prior to the visit. To ensure unbiased selection and adequate representation of
both genders, interviewers were instructed to interview the third male and the
third female on the list from each school visited. 

Phase III

The third phase of the evaluation was devoted to the completion of a
case-control study comparing program impact in 75 randomly selected SBP
cases with 75 non-SBP cases matched according to age, gender, race, crime,
and county of supervision criteria. Rates of rearrest, placements, and cost of
placement were used as outcome measures. For those with multiple charges,
the most serious charge was used as the basis for matching. This process,
although retrospective in nature, was a strategy designed to identify youth who
are equivalent in every way except in the type of probation to which they were
assigned. Controls were selected from the statistical card database.

In selecting counties for this study, several requirements had to be met. First,
potential counties must have had an SBP program in operation since 1994 to
allow 18 months of followup on each individual selected for the study. Counties
also had to have sufficient numbers of cases to select 25 school-based cases
and 25 matched controls. Finally, potential counties needed to have
documentation accessible to the study staff. Five counties met all criteria, and
three counties were included in the study--Erie, Lehigh, and Somerset.

For each of the participating counties, data for 18 months from the date of
assignment to probation were examined for both cases and controls. This time
interval provided an adequate period of observation during which rearrests,
probation violations, and placements would be expected to have occurred.
These outcomes were assessed through onsite review of case records of the
participating counties, with case data documented on structured recording
forms developed by the project staff.

The primary outcomes measured in this pilot study were related to
reinvolvement with the court. The specific events that were monitored for both
cases and controls were: (1) arrests for probation violations and new charges
and (2) placements made by the courts. Originally, this study had planned to
include data from the schools, including attendance reports, behavioral histories,
and academic performance records. However, participating schools had a
variety of approaches to the collection, retention, and storage of such data with
none of these data elements recorded in a consistent manner by all schools.


Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Phase I 

The majority (80 percent) of cases, both SBP and non-SBP, were male. The
proportion of female cases assigned to SBP increased over the period of
observation--from 16.8 percent in 1993 to 22.2 percent in 1995. The racial 
distribution in SBP and non-SBP cases was not significantly different. When
comparing the ages of SBP and non-SBP youth, important differences can be
found, with SBP serving younger youth. This difference is most obvious in the
1995 reporting year in which 58 percent of school-based cases were youth
aged 13 to 15, while only 40 percent of the non-SBP cases were from this age
group. Since both age and gender showed changes over the reporting period,
the relationship between these two variables was evaluated. A significant
correlation was identified reflecting a higher representation of female cases
among younger age groups. Since the increased representation of female cases
was not seen in the general population of cases, it is likely that the younger ages
of those being served by SBP account for the increased proportion of female
cases. While the proportion of youth assigned to SBP from grades 7 to 9
increased during the study cases, the proportion of cases from grades 10 to 12
declined.

Data from the statistical card database reveal that these 451 cases had 1,694
allegations of crimes, 25 percent (n=428) of which were against persons, 44
percent (n=746) related to property, and 4.5 percent (n=77) related to drugs.
These allegations resulted in 875 (52 percent) substantiated charges, of which
26.6 percent (n=233) were crimes against persons, 42.3 percent (n=370) were
property crimes, and 6.3 percent (n=55) were drug-related crimes. In
examining the five most common crimes among these cases, theft was the most
common substantiated charge (n=79) followed by simple assault (n=72),
receiving stolen property (n=65), burglary (n=43), and conspiracy to commit
theft (n=34).

Summary

These data suggest that the program served a diverse population of youth who
were somewhat younger than their non-SBP counterparts. The average age of
the youth assigned to SBP was just over 15. Given the association between age
and gender found in this data set, the SBP cases were also more likely to be
female.

With respect to the criminal charges that brought these youth into the juvenile
court system, there appeared to be few differences between SBP and non-SBP
cases. Nearly identical rates of personal, property, drug, and other crimes were
found when the juvenile court data for these two groups were compared. 

In conducting these descriptive analyses, it became apparent that no existing
data systems could be used to monitor even the most basic characteristics of
the juveniles assigned to SBP. Despite the fact that a significant amount of
probation officer time was devoted to the completion of forms documenting the
characteristics of the cases assigned to SBP, the forms were not routinely
compiled or reviewed. 

As currently designed, the retrospective completion of performance data
regarding behavior, school attendance, and academic performance yields
unusable evaluative data at the aggregate level. The validity and reliability of
these data are compromised by a variety of problems. In some situations and
locations, information required to complete the form was not available.
Methods for completing and submitting the forms were not standardized, which
resulted in great variations in procedures for completion of the forms.
Consequently, a significant amount of evaluative data could not be used.

It was recommended that the data collection system be redesigned into a
two-part process. The first form would be completed as the youth begin their
school-based probation and the second completed at the close of supervision.
Both assessments should report on verifiable information for the same intervals.
To maximize the value of these data, a numerical identifier common to the
statistical card should be included on the form.

Phase II

School-Based Probation Officer Interviews

The 51 SBP officers who were interviewed had an average of 5.6 years
(range=0.3 to 25) of probation experience and an average of 1.8 years
(range=0.1 to 5.5) of experience as school-based probation officers. Although
they reported an average caseload of 26.7 cases (range=6 to 78), 60 percent
of these officers also maintained caseloads that were not school based. Those
with only school-based cases carried an average caseload of 29, while those
with both carried an average of 31.

Seventy-three percent of the officers interviewed reported using the single case
management model, in which they complete all work related to each of their
assigned probation cases. Officers using this management approach spent an
average of 66 percent of their time in the school environment compared with 81
percent for those using the dual case management approach, where casework
is shared among probation officers. The differences were statistically significant
and translated to officers using the dual case management approach being in
school an average of 75 percent of a day per week longer than their single-case
cohorts.

Probation officers reported spending an average of 48 percent of their time in
direct case contact and 18 percent in contact with case collaterals, 10 percent
in court, 10 percent in travel, and the remainder in training and intake. Although
the median percentage of time spent in school was reported to be 70 percent,
the percentage ranged from a low of 25 percent to a high of 95 percent. The
percentage of time spent in school correlated to the amount of time spent in
direct client contact. The range of activities in which SBP officers reported
involvement included: visiting the parents of juveniles participating in SBP (94
percent); participating in the disciplinary decisions of assigned cases (84
percent); attending nonacademic school activities (84 percent); giving
presentations in classes and monitoring the lunchroom, hallways, and study hall
(76 percent); and serving as active participants in the school's Student
Assistance Program (68 percent). Seventy-eight percent of the officers
interviewed reported that they had developed, or helped to develop, special
programs in their schools, including support groups, tutoring services, and
mentoring programs. Drug testing was reported to have been used in probation
programs by 86 percent of the SBP officers and electronic monitoring, by 79
percent.

The majority of officers saw their primary role as advocating, arranging for, and
delivering needed services for their cases (75 percent). Responses revealed
inconsistencies between the self-defined role and the perceived role of the
officer, with others more likely to define the role of the SBP officer as one of
police, security, and surveillance.

While four areas--academic performance, school attendance, delinquent
behavior, and disciplinary referrals--were viewed as being positively affected
by the program, the area perceived to have been affected the most was school
attendance. Nearly 50 percent viewed the program as extremely effective in this
area.

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

The majority of officers saw their primary role as advocating, arranging for, and
delivering needed services for their cases (75 percent).

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


School Administrator Interviews

Fifty-two school administrators were interviewed during site visits. Like the
probation officers, the administrators reported a range of officer involvement
within their school environment. Administrators described the officers as having
full access to school documentation (academic and disciplinary records) for the
cases they supervised. The majority of respondents, 85 percent (n=44),
indicated that the officers participated in making decisions regarding formal
disciplinary actions to be taken with students on probation but were not overly
involved.

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

Consistent with the ratings of the probation officers, school administrators saw
school attendance as the area that had been affected the most.

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

Although ratings in five areas of performance for the school-based program
were extremely positive, ranging from a low of 85 percent to a high of 98
percent, it is important to note that the concerns expressed by those who were
not satisfied seemed to reflect a desire for the probation officers to fill a policing
function. The positive assessments were reflected in the overall ratings of the
working relationship with the school-based officer: 87 percent indicated that
they had an excellent relationship and 12 percent indicated they had a good
relationship. No one indicated a poor working relationship. Eighty-five percent
of the administrators believed the program was such an important part of the
school environment that it deserved financial support from the school district.
Thirty-three percent believed that their school boards would be willing to
provide such support. 

Consistent with the ratings of the probation officers, school administrators saw
school attendance as the area that had been affected the most.

SBP Case Interviews

Of the 111 SBP youth who were interviewed, 67 percent (n=75) were male
and 32 percent (n=36) were female; 65 percent (n=72) were Caucasian, 26
percent (n=29) African-American, and 5 percent (n=6) Hispanic. The average
age of these students was 15 years, and the median grade level was ninth.
These cases had been under supervision for an average of 9.4 months, and 78
percent (n=86) of those interviewed were on probation for the first time. Thirty
percent (n=33) had been in some form of out-of-home placement (e.g., foster
home, residential center) prior to being assigned to SBP.

Frequency of contact with probation officers reported by respondents was
found to be significantly associated with the integration of the officer into the
school environment. Twenty percent of the youth (n=22) were required to
report to their officers daily; overall, the youth reported seeing their probation
officer an average of 2.7 times per week.

Respondents were also asked a number of questions about the impact the
program had had on their behavior. Unlike the probation officers and the school
administrators, these respondents reported that the greatest impact of the
program had been on their behavior both in and out of school.

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

[R]espondents reported that the greatest impact of the program had been on
their behavior both in and out of school.

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

Summary

Assigning the probation officer to the school allowed much greater opportunity
for the establishment of relationships that facilitated supervision and an
understanding of the needs of the youth. The percentage of time spent in the
school environment may have been the best indicator of this opportunity. More
time spent in the school environment was not only a logical prerequisite for
building strong working relationships; it was also statistically associated with the
amount of direct case contact. Given that this time in school may have been the
defining characteristic of the program, it was recommended that a minimum
standard be established for the percentage of time an officer must be present in
the school environment for the probation program to be considered school
based. 

The presence of the officer in the school was also perceived as directly
responsible for improvements in attendance by the youth assigned to SBP. The
attainment of this goal was important not only because school attendance is a
prerequisite for academic success, but also because school was the primary
location of the probation supervision. Thus, a juvenile attending school was
exposed to an educational environment as well as the behavioral controls
inherent in the frequent contact with their probation officer.

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

More time spent in the school environment was not only a logical prerequisite
for building strong working relationships; it was also statistically associated with
the amount of direct case contact.

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

Phase III

The subjects in the case-controlled study had an average age of 14 years at the
time of their assignment to school-based probation. Eighty-six percent of the
subjects were male (n=129), 54 percent (n=81) were Caucasian, 23 percent
(n=34) were African-American, and 19 percent (n=29) were Hispanic. The
characteristics of the school-based cases and control sample were statistically
equivalent on all of the basic demographic measures.

Thirty-two percent (n=48) of the control sample had charges filed during the
18-month study period. There were no significant differences between the
school-based probation cases (36 percent) and the controls (28 percent) in the
number of individuals who were charged with crimes. For those who had any
charges filed against them (n=48), the average number of charges was
somewhat lower in the SBP group (1.6) compared with the matched controls
(2.1). The group average, including all subjects, for number of charges was
0.55 and 0.53 for SBP and controls, respectively.

Although no differences existed between these groups with respect to the
number of new charges accrued, significant differences existed in the severity of
the charges and the time to first charge. Charges were classified by the
following types of offense: (1) probation violations and status offenses and (2)
all other charges. Consistent with increased case contact, the SBP group had
significantly more charges of probation violation and status offenses than did the
non-SBP controls--50 percent versus 18 percent, respectively.

Additionally, the time between assignment to probation and the date of the first
charge was significantly longer for those assigned to SBP--271 days for SBP
cases and 206 days for the controls.

Overall, 27.6 percent (n=21) of the SBP cases and 29.7 percent (n=22) of the
controls were assigned by the court to some form of placement during the
18-month study period. Placements included detention centers and secure
placements, drug and alcohol programs, general residential placements, and a
number of less restrictive community-based placements such as foster and
group homes. Among those who were placed, SPB cases had a significantly
longer period of time until first placement than controls--118 days versus 300
days, respectively. SBP cases also had significantly fewer days in placement
than controls: 35.7 days versus 83.8 days.

Differences in placements between the two groups resulted in dramatically
different costs for placements. Cost of placement was determined using the
authorized per diem rate schedule. The average cost of placement for the
matched controls in the study was $39,314.86, while that for SBP cases was
$17,701.44. To estimate overall program costs, the average cost per individual
assigned to each condition was computed, which revealed a significantly lower
cost for placing offenders in SBP than in other probation programs ($5,023.38
versus $11,688.20). This estimate could be used to project cost savings for
counties adopting school-based probation.

The number of placements had a direct impact on the amount of time the
subject was in the community without additional supervision. Youth assigned to
SBP spent more days in the community than controls who were assigned to
traditional probation (448 days versus 400 days). Once placement occurred,
the potential for rearrest was also altered. To account for the different rates of
placement, rates of charges for new offenses, excluding probation violations
and status offenses, were calculated as a function of time in the community.
These rates, expressed as number of events per person year in the community,
reflect a 43-percent lower rate for SBP cases (0.23 events per year for SBP
and 0.40 events per year for controls).

Summary

The data presented show important differences between a group of randomly
selected SBP cases and their matched counterparts who were assigned to more
traditional forms of probation. It cannot be stated with certainty that the
observed differences in charges and placements are due to the SBP program.
The data can only suggest a program effect. Although the case control design is
a powerful quasi-experimental approach, it is retrospective in nature and does
not involve the random assignment of subjects to experimental and control
conditions. Also, these data are derived from only three counties; therefore, the
current study cannot address their generalizability to other counties. To confirm
these findings, larger prospective studies are required. Despite the limitations of
this approach, the findings are very encouraging. In addition to cost savings,
reductions in the destructive effects of extended placements and less emphasis
on the more restrictive components of the juvenile justice system can be
expected. 

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

In addition to cost savings, reductions in the destructive effects of extended
placements and less emphasis on the more restrictive components of the
juvenile justice system can be expected.

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

Virginia: Detention Center Incarceration Program

This summary was adapted from the report Detention Center Incarceration
Program, which presents evaluation research conducted by the staff of the
Planning, Research and Certification Unit, Virginia Department of Corrections. 

The Detention Center Incarceration Program was implemented in the
Commonwealth of Virginia in 1995 to provide an effective intermediate
sanction for adult probationers. The creation of the program was stimulated by
the determination that younger, nonviolent offenders must be assigned to less
secure, shorter term programs to reserve the more costly and more secure
prison-bed space for violent offenders whose prison terms were expected to
lengthen with the abolition of parole. The source of funding was state general
revenues. 

Program Overview

The Detention Center Incarceration Program includes two primary components
and is patterned after programs in Georgia. The first component is a short
residential phase that emphasizes military-style discipline, physical work, and
intense educational and treatment services. The second component provides
intensive supervision coupled with treatment and transitional services in the
community. The philosophy of the program is based on the rationale for the
earlier Boot Camp Incarceration Program, which is generally regarded as
successful in Virginia. The Detention Center Incarceration Program is designed
for newly convicted felony offenders or probation violators who meet the
following criteria: convicted of nonviolent felony offenses, determined by the
court as needing more security or supervision than that provided by the
Diversion Center Incarceration Program (similar to work release), and
disqualified by age or physical condition from the Boot Camp Incarceration
Program. The offenders are also seen as possibly benefitting from a regimented
environment and structured program. Program participation is voluntary;
therefore admissions are gender, race, and age neutral. Two features make
Virginia's program unique: (1) the strong emphasis on substance-abuse
education and treatment in the facility phase and (2) solid community transitional
services and followup by probation and parole field staff. The potential for
program replication is also a major consideration.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the Detention Center Incarceration Program are to safely divert
nonviolent felony offenders from long-term incarceration, to avoid the costs of
building and operating correctional facilities, and to reduce recidivism.

Objectives for achieving these goals include:

o Shifting nonviolent offenders and probation violators from long-term
incarceration to shorter term incarceration coupled with community supervision.

o Reducing the targeted offender group's criminal activity.

o Implementing a correctional program that is cost effective when compared
with incarceration.

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

The goals of the Detention Center Incarceration Program are to safely divert
nonviolent felony offenders from long-term incarceration, to avoid the costs of
building and operating correctional facilities, and to reduce recidivism.

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

Program Activities/Components

Detention Center Incarceration Program activities include 20 weeks of 
military-style management and supervision, physical labor in organized public
works projects, counseling, remedial education, substance-abuse testing and
treatment, and community reentry services. Nonviolent felony offenders may
volunteer for the program in lieu of imprisonment at the time of initial sentencing
or a probation violation. Their acceptance depends on an evaluation and
recommendations made by probation/parole officers to the court. If accepted,
an offender receives a suspended prison sentence and is placed on probation
supervision with a special condition to complete the program. Transportation to
the facility is provided by local correctional facility and center staff. Physical
examinations are conducted immediately upon arrival. Platoons are formed at
intake, and the introduction to military-style discipline and general orders
begins.

The average day begins at 0550 and concludes at 2200 hours. Daily activities
include personal hygiene and area cleanup, military drill, supervised work
details at nearby state prison or public service sites, individual and group
treatment and education, and brief moments of free time. The environment 
is spartan; there is no television; and visitors are permitted only on alternate
weekends. A graduation ceremony to which friends and family are invited
concludes the residential phase of the program. As graduation day approaches,
the program probation and parole officers begin developing transitional plans
with the detainee's assigned community probation/parole officer. The transition
plans address living arrangements, employment, payment of court-ordered
fines, costs, restitution or community service, and substance-abuse or other
treatment services. Upon return to the community, the detainee is assigned to
intensive supervision for a period of time specified by the sentencing judge. The
supervision is supplemented as needed with treatment or transitional services
from community or contractual service providers. Once the detainee has
successfully completed intensive supervision, he or she is placed on a regular
supervision caseload for at least 1 year.

There are currently three detention centers for men, with a fourth to be opened
in 1999, and one center for women. Additional centers are in the planning
stages. A staff of 45 include the superintendent, 5 probation and parole officers
and counselors, 31 correctional officers, and other maintenance and
administrative workers. Their activities include general management and
direction; information dissemination to the public and education for field staff
and judges; provision of individual and group assessment, treatment, and
rehabilitative services; transportation; and other maintenance services. The
program also provides training for staff to meet the basic and specialized
requirements established by the Department of Corrections (DOC) for their
respective positions. Additionally, staff must participate in training in the proper
use of military-style maneuvers and discipline. Care must be taken to ensure
that the forceful disciplinary approach does not degenerate into detainee abuse.
Monitoring and evaluation procedures and instruments include an offender
database in each center, consolidation of data into a monthly management
summary report, program reviews and audits, and evaluation of program
outcomes (requested by the executive staff), as needed.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

The purpose of the report Detention Center Incarceration Program was to
address the following questions:

o What is the offender profile of detention center participants?

o What are the program outcome rates (i.e., successful completion versus
dropout)? What is the average length of stay for offenders completing the
program versus dropouts?

o What percentage of detention center participants commit new offenses
following release or have a subsequent probation/parole revocation within the
12 months following release?

o How many program participants were diverted from prison or were
included in the program as a result of net widening?

o Is the program cost effective compared with prison incarceration?

To analyze the issues, the Planning, Research and Certification Unit at the
Department of Corrections collected profile and recidivism information on all
offenders who cycled through the program during calendar year 1996 and used
the following methodologies to complete this research project:

o Review of existing community corrections programs.

o Analysis of detention center participant and completion data compiled and
maintained by detention center staff.

o Development of a computer program to merge data obtained from detention
center staff with data of all probationers and parolees maintained in DOC's
automated database.

o Development of a survey instrument for use by probation and parole 
officers to compile recidivism and probation/parole revocation data.

o Review of budget reports prepared by the DOC Budget Unit to obtain per
capita costs for prisoners and detainees.

The sample consisted of all offenders (n=425) who cycled through the
Southampton Detention Center, Nottoway Detention Center, and Southampton
Detention Center for Women during calendar year 1996. Completed survey
instruments were received for 87 percent of this cohort, or 368 of the 425
offenders.

The survey instrument collected the following data elements: type of obligation
(parole, probation, or both), referral source, location prior to program
admission, reconviction data, and sanction and revocation data. In addition, a
question was included to determine whether the offender was sanctioned to the
Detention Center Incarceration Program as a last resort prior to beginning the
revocation process. To ensure consistent coding and reliable data, an
instructional booklet listing available codes was disseminated to the probation
and parole officers responsible for completing the survey instrument.

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

The sample consisted of all offenders . . . who cycled through the Southampton
Detention Center, Nottoway Detention Center, and Southampton Detention
Center for Women during calendar year 1996.

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

The first phase of data collection began with compiling the offender's name,
identification number, supervising probation/parole officer, admission date, exit
date, and reason for admission from detention center staff. These data were
then merged with the probation and parole automated database to extract
demographic variables, including date of birth, gender, race, marital status,
number of children, educational level, and most serious offense. The second
phase of data collection, which began in June 1997 and lasted for 1 month,
concentrated on the completion of survey instruments by the supervising
probation and parole officers. Data collected during the first phase of the
project were included and were supplemented with information provided by the
officers or the researchers. Once completed, the survey instruments were faxed
or mailed back and entered into a database for analysis and interpretation.
After all data were entered into the database, file edits were run to ensure data
consistency.

The data analysis phase of the project conducted by the Planning, Research
and Certification Unit focused on completing offender profiles and assessing
program outcomes for offenders who successfully completed the Detention
Center Incarceration Program and for those who dropped out. Program
outcome was cross-tabulated with gender, age at admission, race/ethnicity, and
obligation type. Additional analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of the
program with that of prison incarceration.

Characteristics of the study population were as follows:

o Almost all detention center participants were probationers referred by 
circuit court judges.

o The vast majority of program participants were single African-American
males with no children.


o The average (mean) age at time of admission to the Detention Center
Incarceration Program was 27 years. The youngest participant was 17 at
admission, and the oldest was 57.

o Just over 25 percent were high school graduates or had received a general
equivalency diploma (GED).

o Almost half (48 percent) of the detention center participants were drug
offenders; 68 percent of this group were convicted for drug distribution.

o The second most prevalent offense was a probation/parole violation, followed
by burglary.

o The average (mean) sentence was 5 years.

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

The data analysis phase of the project conducted by the Planning, Research
and Certification Unit focused on completing offender profiles and assessing
program outcomes for offenders who successfully completed the Detention
Center Incarceration Program and for those who dropped out.

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

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Program Outcome Rates

Nearly 8 out of 10 offenders (78 percent) admitted to the program successfully
completed it. The mean length of stay for this group was 134 days; the average
length of stay for dropouts was 41 days. There were no absconders.

For those who dropped out of the program, the following reasons were
recorded: medical/psychological (42 percent), disciplinary infractions (29
percent), voluntary withdrawal (18 percent), and other (11 percent).

Parolees exhibited lower success rates than probationers: 78 percent of
probationers successfully completed the program compared with only 43
percent of parolees. However, the vast majority of detention center participants
were probationers; only seven parolees were in the program, and they were
under concurrent probation supervision to meet the required eligibility criterion.

When program outcome was measured by race/ethnicity, little difference was
found in the success rates for African-American and Caucasian offenders with
success rates of 76 and 80 percent, respectively.

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

Parolees exhibited lower success rates than probationers: 78 percent of
probationers successfully completed the program compared with only 43
percent of parolees.

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

Release Outcome Rates

The Detention Center Incarceration Program was effective in reducing
reconviction and subsequent probation/parole revocation rates for those who
completed the program--only 15 percent (42 out of 286) had a subsequent
probation or parole revocation. Dropouts had a rate of 63 percent.

Only 3 percent of the offenders (9 out of 286) who successfully completed the
program had been reconvicted for new offenses (2.4 percent felony conviction
and 0.6 percent for misdemeanor conviction). Offenders who dropped out of
the program exhibited a slightly higher rate of felony reconviction (4 percent).

For those who had successfully completed the program and subsequently
received a probation/parole revocation, almost 70 percent (29 out of 42) of this
group were assigned for technical violations rather than new crimes.

Prison Diversion/Cost-Effectiveness

Alternative placement programs are most effective when participating offenders
would, absent these programs, be incarcerated in prison at a much higher cost.
To assess whether the offenders studied were true prison diversions or were in
the program as a result of net widening, a question was included on the survey
instrument to determine whether the offender was assigned to the program as a
last resort to prison incarceration. Probation and parole officers completing the
survey instrument indicated that 128 (35 percent) of those assigned to the
Detention Center Incarceration Program were prison diversions. Since
probation/parole revocation was the most serious sanction for 57 of the 368
participants and these offenders accounted for 45 percent of the 128 offenders
identified as prison diversions, it is reasonable to expect that, at minimum, these
offenders were assigned to the program as a last resort to prison incarceration.

To address the question of whether detention centers are cost effective, the per
capita cost for detention center placement was compared with the per capita
cost of prison incarceration. Data prepared by DOC's Budget Unit in
November 1996 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996, indicated that the per
capita cost for detention center placement was $14,186, compared with
$16,590 for prison incarceration (a cost differential of $2,404). Diverting 128
offenders from prison resulted in a cost savings of $307,712.

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

Alternative placement programs are most effective when participating offenders
would, absent these programs, be incarcerated in prison at a much higher cost.

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

The findings of this research study suggest that the Detention Center
Incarceration Program was successful in meeting its intended goals and
objectives. The program's strong discipline and physical requirements, focused
treatment services, and period of intensive probation supervision in the
community served to divert offenders from prison incarceration, thus resulting in
cost savings to the Commonwealth of Virginia, reduced felony and
misdemeanor reconvictions, and fewer subsequent probation and parole
revocations.

Offenders who cycled through the program in 1996 have outcome rates 
(successful completion versus dropout) that are similar to those for boot camp
participants during the same time period. Seventy percent of the boot camp
participants successfully completed their program, compared with 78 percent of
the detention center participants. Furthermore, subsequent probation/parole
revocation rates are comparable for detention and boot camp participants.
Sixteen percent of those successfully completing the boot camp program had a
subsequent probation/parole revocation hearing compared with 15 percent for
the detention center program. However, for those who dropped out of the boot
camp program, 51 percent had no subsequent probation/parole revocation,
compared with only 28 percent for detention center dropouts. 

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

Overall, the results of these evaluations suggest that this intensive, short-term
program is an effective and safe alternative for selected offenders.

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

In 1998, the Department's Planning, Research and Certification Unit conducted
a followup study of the 1996 participant cohort and found that 80 percent of
the participating offenders had not returned to jail or prison. 

Overall, the results of these evaluations to date suggest that this intensive,
short-term program is an effective and safe alternative for selected offenders.

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

New Hampshire: Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program 

This summary was adapted from Evaluating the Merrimack County Adult
Diversion Program: Final Report, which presents evaluation research conducted
by D. Alan Henry and Spurgeon Kennedy of the Pretrial Services Resource
Center in Washington, D.C. 

Under an agreement dated December 12, 1996, the Pretrial Services
Resources Center (PSRC) agreed to conduct process and outcome evaluations
of the Merrimack County (New Hampshire) Adult Diversion Program. The
process evaluation would assess:

o Whether the program's operations and procedures comply with standards
for pretrial diversion adopted by the National Association of Pretrial Services
Agencies (NAPSA), the National District Attorneys Association, and the
American Bar Association.

o Whether the program's structure and services address the specific problems
that contributed to its participants' criminal behavior.

o How other criminal justice officials, program clients, and program alumni
view the diversion program.

The outcome evaluation would determine:

o Rates of recidivism and defendant compliance with conditions of diversion.

o Performance of program defendants compared with similar defendants
remaining in existing case processing.

Program Overview

The Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program was established in 1992
under grant number 209-619-02 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

The diversion program was originally part of the County Attorney's Office but
was moved in 1994 from Concord to its current location in Boscawen with the
Department of Corrections (DOC). The program's full-time staff consist of a
director, programs coordinator, and receptionist. A DOC employee serves as
the program's substance-abuse counselor, and a contracted social worker
assesses potential diversion clients. In addition, an advisory board helps
establish the policy direction and actively reviews client participation.

The program accepts defendants aged 17 years and older who are charged
with nonviolent felony offenses and have no history of violent criminal behavior.
Consistent with accepted standards, there are no restrictions on program
participation except for current and past criminal history and a defendant's
receptiveness to the program. A guilty plea is not required for diversion
participation. 

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

The Diversion Offender Profile was created by Merrimack County police
agencies and the county attorney during the program's development phase to
identify nonviolent, nonhabitual defendants eligible for referral.

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

Diversion program placement is a three-step process:

1. Local arresting agencies determine initial eligibility using a Diversion
Offender Profile. Defendants identified as eligible for diversion are referred to
the Merrimack County attorney.

2. The county attorney, after discussing the referral with the arresting agency,
determines the strength of the case and whether diversion from conventional
case processing is appropriate. If charges are filed and diversion appears
suitable, the charging documents are completed, the defendant's case is placed
on a suspended calendar, and the defendant is referred to the program for a
final assessment.

3. The diversion program conducts an assessment that includes an
investigative interview with the defendant, a substance-abuse evaluation to
determine current drug use and appropriate monitoring or treatment, and a
social work evaluation to identify potential clients whose mental or emotional
problems make them unsuitable for diversion and determine an appropriate
alternative program.

The Diversion Offender Profile was created by Merrimack County police
agencies and the county attorney during the program's development phase to
identify nonviolent, nonhabitual defendants eligible for referral. According to the
profile, defendants are ineligible if they meet any of the following criteria:

o Are charged with a violent, sex-related, or drug-trafficking crime.

o Have a previous conviction resulting in an incarceration of more than 7 days.

o Have already participated in diversion.

o Are charged with an offense that "represents a major threat to society or
requires general deterrent."

o Are charged with a crime whose conviction "would justify" a prison sentence.

o Have a prior person, property, or drug-related felony conviction. 

The program has an automated management information system containing data
on all referrals, accepted clients, rejected defendants, and program outcomes
(successful completion or termination). 

Goals and Objectives

According to its mission statement, the diversion program seeks to:

Divert nonviolent offenders from the criminal court docket into a rigorous,
comprehensive, community-based rehabilitation program. . . . To assist in this
self-rehabilitation, the program provides opportunities for treatment, community
service, restitution, counseling, and education.

Program Activities/Components

Diversion program assessment takes 138 days on average and uses two main
screening instruments--substance-abuse and social work assessments. The
substance-abuse assessment, performed by a DOC substance-abuse
counselor, includes evaluations based on a drug-abuse test and an alcohol-
screening test. Based on the results of these tests, the counselor recommends
placement in one of three supervision groups:

o Level One--for participants assessed as not having substance abuse-related
disorders. Clients under this level of supervision attend informational and
educational workshops on substance abuse.

o Level Two--for participants assessed as having substance-abuse problems.
Besides the workshops mentioned above, these clients are required to attend
90-minute group sessions and submit to regular substance-abuse testing.

o Level Three--for participants whose substance-abuse problems require a
level of inpatient treatment. Upon successful inpatient treatment, these clients
are referred to Level Two supervision. 

The social work assessment gauges a defendant's current and prior mental,
emotional, and behavioral conditions. It is performed by a licensed social
worker and is extensive, focusing on a defendant's self-perception, problems
that may contribute to negative behavior, and past and present mental and
emotional problems and treatment.

The program director and program coordinator make the final decision to
accept or reject a defendant based on the results of the initial social work
assessment, a drug-abuse test, and an alcohol test.

Once a defendant is accepted into the Merrimack County Adult Diversion
Program, he or she and his or her defense attorney meet with the program
director or a designated staff member for a program review during which the
defendant's conditions and responsibilities under direct supervision are
presented to the defendant as a written diversion contract. After thorough
review, the document is signed by the program director, the defendant, defense
counsel, and the county attorney.

Program supervision includes four mandatory conditions:

o 600 hours of community service work.

o A tour of the New Hampshire State Prison for Men located in Concord.

o Restitution payments, if ordered by the county attorney.

o 10 hours of substance-abuse classes to be completed within 6 months of
program acceptance.

Specific diversion program conditions are categorized under the life skills
component. This consists of educational classes and 2-hour workshops, and
clients must complete a total of 30 hours. Programs are selected through joint
consultation between a client and the program coordinator and include topics
such as conflict resolution, stress management, domestic violence, job search
skills, parenting skills, wellness, communication skills, and AIDS/sexually
transmitted diseases. Classes are open to a client's family members and
partners to enhance the classes' rehabilitative effects.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

Process Evaluation

The process evaluation was based on PSRC's onsite inspection of the diversion
program using a checklist of diversion program policies and procedures drawn
from relevant criminal justice standards and onsite interviews with the program
director, staff, and advisory board; county DOC administration; county
attorney; defense bar; and program clients and alumni. Diversion program
procedures also were compared with those of 20 similar programs surveyed by
PSRC. The evaluation focused specifically on:

o Client eligibility and enrollment. 

o Supervision services and conditions.

o Organizational structure.

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

The evaluation focused specifically on:
o Client eligibility and enrollment.
o Supervision services and conditions.
o Organizational structure.

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

Client Eligibility and Enrollment

Criminal justice standards recommend that eligibility criteria for pretrial
diversion be stated in writing. They should include all defendants who might
benefit from diversion and should ensure that program placement is not denied
to a client because of race, gender, sexual preference, economic status,
disability, or inability to pay restitution or potential program fees. In addition,
criteria should not require a guilty plea and the defendant's participation should
be voluntary. 

Supervision Services and Diversion Conditions

Diversion standards suggest that diversion conditions address specific client
needs, particularly addressing behavior that may lead to criminal activity. These
conditions should be specific, achievable, and as minimally restrictive as
possible to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence. An appropriate
diversion service plan also may include voluntary community service, restitution,
and drug testing as general conditions.

Diversion standards also recommend that supervision include clear time limits
for program completion and a mechanism for reviewing and possibly revising
conditions as needed to achieve contract goals. NAPSA standards also
encourage supervision time that is neither longer nor more costly than necessary
to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence. Most diversion programs
surveyed had supervision times of 6 months to 1 year.

Finally, diversion standards suggest that programs not release client-based
information without the client's knowledge or consent and have in place written
agreements with the courts, prosecutors, and service providers detailing the
type of information the program will release and under what circumstances. 

Organizational Structure

NAPSA standards suggest that diversion programs have a written mission
statement or statement of goals and objectives, an information system that
allows program information to be recorded and managed, and a staff sufficient
in size and experience to help clients meet program requirements.

Outcome Evaluation

The outcome evaluation sought to identify differences in recidivism rates among
defendants completing the diversion program successfully, those terminated
from the program, and those who withdrew during the assessment phase and to
determine if these differences could be explained wholly or in part by program
participation.

A quasi-experimental design was used due to problems implementing an
experimental design--that is, a smaller sample size and a shorter duration. This
method constructed comparison groups (rather than control groups) from
program records of defendants who closely matched diversion participants. The
groups included defendants who either failed or withdrew during assessment
and clients terminated from the program. These groups were then matched
against successful program participants by the variables studied, with
differences attributed in some degree to diversion program participation. The
design allowed PSRC to consider all defendants referred to or accepted by the
program as comparison or program group participants. In most cases, the
evaluation also allowed more time to track behavior after program
development.

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

The outcome evaluation sought to identify differences in recidivism rates among
defendants completing the diversion program successfully, those terminated
from the program, and those who withdrew during the assessment phase and to
determine if these differences could be explained wholly or in part by program
participation.

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

Group One included successful program participants; Group Two, defendants
who dropped out during assessment; and Group Three, program terminations.
Each group was originally screened through the Diversion Offender Profile,
which ensured similarity in categories such as type of charge, prior criminal
history, prior diversion program participation, and circumstances regarding the
most recent offense. To further evaluate similarities, PSRC compared each
group by characteristics found in the database, including age, gender, race,
professional status, marital status, and educational level. 

Due to the small number of cases in the overall sample, PSRC evaluated all
defendants and clients considered for diversion. Because sampling was not
used, measures of association could not be applied; differences between the
groups were therefore presented in percentages.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Process Evaluation

PSRC found that the Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program met the
guidelines for client eligibility and enrollment by having no restrictions on
program participation except current and past criminal history and a defendant's
receptiveness to the program. 

Client Eligibility and Enrollment

The evaluation suggested that the profile categories "offense represents a major
threat to society or requires general deterrent" and "prison-bound offender"
required prosecutorial input. From interviews with police officials and the
prosecutor, PSRC could not determine whether these categories were ever
used by arresting agencies and, if so, whether the agencies defined these
categories consistently. If they did not, it was possible that similarly situated
arrestees in separate police districts were not being screened for diversion in
the same way. Other profile categories seemed inconsistent or vague. For
example, while the profile excluded defendants with prior jail incarcerations of
more than 7 days, past sentences such as probation, fines, and restitution were
not considered restrictions. Additionally, there were no time limits on the prior
jail time restriction. For example, a defendant who served a 30-day jail
sentence 10 years ago apparently would score the same as a defendant who
served a similar sentence within the past 3 months. 

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

PSRC found that the Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program met the
guidelines for client eligibility and enrollment by having no restrictions on
program participation except current and past criminal history and a defendant's
receptiveness to the program.

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

PSRC recommended that the Diversion Offender Profile be used by arresting
agencies to gauge only a defendant's current and past criminal behavior and that
the following restrictions be used to ensure that exclusions to diversion eligibility
were specific and less restrictive:

o No current violent, sex-related, or drug-trafficking offense.

o No prior felony convictions.

o No prior misdemeanor convictions within a specified period of time (for
example, the past 2 years).

o No prior diversion participation.

o No pending criminal charges or current probation or parole status.

The 138 days needed for assessment was longer than the 1- to 3-month
assessment period noted by most survey diversion programs. According to
data from 160 reviews, the diversion program offered 110 defendants contracts
after the screening period. For cases for which substance-abuse evaluation data
were available (n=104 cases), 50 screened defendants (48.1 percent) were
placed into Level One supervision and 53 (50.9 percent) into Level Two. This
suggests that a significant number of screened defendants have substance
abuse-related issues that can be addressed through counseling and/or regular
drug and alcohol testing. After assessments of 20 defendants who failed during
this period for reasons other than rearrest or withdrawal were reviewed, it was
found that only three exhibited mental or emotional problems, making them
inappropriate for placement. This finding suggested that most defendants who
had been assessed would not require extensive social and psychological
screening to determine needed services. PSRC recommended that the diversion
program consider replacing the substance-abuse assessment with a procedure
based on a defendant's current and prior drug use and results from drug and
alcohol tests. Placement into drug monitoring or treatment would depend on a
defendant's admitted drug or alcohol usage, test results, and the circumstances
of the current charge. PSRC also recommended that the diversion program
consider discontinuing the social work assessment since the county's population
eligible for diversion does not exhibit emotional or mental problems requiring
such a lengthy screening process.

Client Supervision and Diversion Conditions

PSRC found that none of the four mandatory diversion conditions addressed
specific client needs. Rather, as expressed in interviews with criminal justice
personnel, these conditions are meant to have an overall rehabilitative effect and
serve as community service and restitution to allow the clients to "repay" the
community during their time in diversion. While mandating these conditions runs
counter to the diversion standards' recommendation for voluntary participation,
each condition appears designed to meet diversion goals. However, PSRC
cautioned that diversion, as a sanction, was not intended as punishment and,
therefore, its conditions should not carry a potentially punitive effect, which may
be the case with an across-the-board community service requirement. Most
surveyed diversion programs that include a community service requirement limit
the condition to a 50-hour maximum. PSRC recommended that the diversion
program drop its policy of a uniform 600-hour community service condition and
adopt a "sliding scale," with hours based on a client's overall supervision plan,
employment status, and schedule, and limit the maximum community service
hours to a total more in line with current diversion program practices
nationwide.

The specialized courses under the life skills component appear to provide an
excellent avenue for addressing specific client behavior that may lead to future
criminal behavior and meet the standards' requirement for establishing
conditions suited to client needs.

Diversion program time is open-ended, depending on the client's completion of
diversion classes, community service, and restitution payments. Data supplied
by the program show that the median supervision time was 660 days for clients
successfully completing the program and 224 days for clients terminated for
noncompliance. The bulk of supervision time is spent meeting community
service obligations. PSRC recommended that the diversion program limit
supervision to 1 year (since most diversion conditions could be completed
within that period) and extensions be made on a case-by-case basis.

The program releases client data only to agencies providing services to clients,
such as substance-abuse treatment or testing facilities; however, no formal
written agreements exist regarding release of such data. To avoid the possibility
of problems and to be consistent with standards, PSRC recommended that the
program enter into written memoranda of understanding with service providers
outlining appropriate release and use of program data.

Organizational Structure

The program has a clear mission statement and an automated management
information system. However, PSRC believes the staffing levels make
maintaining adequate supervision and the current level of services problematic
and expansion impractical. Accordingly, PSRC recommended that the program
use its existing budget allocation for contracted social work to hire a part-time
programs coordinator. 

PSRC also noted in several onsite interviews that the Boscawen location was
inconvenient. Program data showed that nearly a third of the clients are from
Concord or surrounding townships, and most of the service providers are in the
Concord area. Given Concord's location within the county, easier access, and
proximity to most program clients and services, PSRC recommended that
county officials move the diversion program back to the Concord area. 

Conclusion

The Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program is an established and
well-respected component of the county's efforts to address and deter criminal
conduct. According to criminal justice officials as well as current and past
clients, the program has a definite and positive effect on defendant behavior.
With certain revisions to its policies and expansion to other appropriate
defendant populations (such as misdemeanor and juvenile offenders), the
program will continue to maintain its current high level of service to its clients
and the criminal justice system. 

Outcome Evaluation

In evaluating variables that favorably affected recidivism rates, PSRC found the
following:

o Recidivism: There is a notable difference in recidivism rates by group; there
were no rearrests in Group One after program completion as compared with
the rearrest of 22.7 percent of Group Two cases and 24.1 percent of Group
Three cases.

o Recidivism and Diversion Participation Points: Most clients or defendants
involved with the diversion program were arrested before 1995. In both
Groups Two and Three, recidivism occurred within 1 year of program or
assessment termination.

o Recidivism and Age: Younger clients and defendants were rearrested more
often than older: 22.7 percent of clients and defendants between ages 18 and
25 were rearrested, compared with 11.1 percent of those between ages 26 and
34, 5.9 percent of those between ages 35 and 40, and none of those over 40.

o Program Compliance and Recidivism Rates: Of the 67 program clients in the
sample, 56.7 percent (38) successfully completed supervision and 10.4 percent
were rearrested after program termination.

From an initial database of 160, 111 defendants were assigned to an
"evaluation group" resulting in 38 diversion program clients successfully
completing supervision; 44 defendants from 1 of 2 "comparison groups"
dropped from consideration following the program's initial assessment; and 29
program clients terminated from supervision.

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

There is a notable difference in recidivism rates by group; there were no
rearrests in Group One after program completion as compared with the rearrest
of 22.7 percent of Group Two cases and 24.1 percent of Group Three cases.

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

Conclusion

The outcome evaluation of the Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program
yielded the following findings:

o There is a marked difference in recidivism rates between persons
successfully completing diversion and other similar defendants not participating
in or having been terminated from diversion.


o The relationship between diversion completion/recidivism weakens when
variables such as age, educational level, and marital status are used as controls.

o Although successful diversion program participation may have some effect
on the likelihood of future recidivism, given the impact of the control variables,
PSRC cannot state conclusively that participation is the reason for the
differences between diversion clients and similar defendants.

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

There is a marked difference in recidivism rates between persons successfully
completing diversion and other similar defendants not participating in or having
been terminated from diversion.

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

These findings are tempered by the limitations of the research design and the
data sample. The quasi-experimental design relied heavily on crafting
comparison groups that closely matched the evaluation group. While Groups
Two and Three were similar enough in many respects to Group One, the
differences in educational levels and marital status leave room to reasonably
question whether these groups were similar enough to compare. Despite these
limitations, certain definite conclusions about diversion in Merrimack County
were reached following the process and outcome reviews and included:

o A well-defined defendant subgroup exists in Merrimack County that is
suitable for diversion placement. County officials managed to identify a stable
and well-defined defendant population eligible for diversion consideration. The
relatively low failure rate for those accepted into the program, defined through
recidivism, and the willingness of most clients to comply with supervision
appear to justify the use of diversion for this population.

o The diversion program has established itself as an effective and needed
component in the county's continuum of sanctions to address and deter criminal
behavior. In their onsite interviews with PSRC, county criminal justice officials
stated that the diversion program had become an effective sanction for eligible
defendants. The combination of supervision, life skills and services, and
community service work gave participants the means to address circumstances
in their lives that might lead to future criminal behavior while "paying back" the
community for the privilege of participating in diversion. Most interviewees also
believed the defendants eligible for diversion benefited more from their program
participation than they would have through other more expensive sanctions such
as incarceration or probation.

o The diversion program operates in compliance with nationally recognized
diversion standards. With certain noted exceptions, the Merrimack County
Adult Diversion Program conforms to national criminal justice standards. It has
written guidelines that identify eligible defendants and that determine each
client's eligibility and specific program needs. A defendant's decision to
participate in diversion is voluntary and is made with the advice of defense
counsel and after a thorough review of general and specific program
requirements. An admission of guilt is not a program requirement; moreover,
successful program participation results in dismissal of charges. Most conditions
and services are specific, reasonable, and, with certain exceptions, geared to a
client's needs. Finally, the program regularly reviews each client's progress and
has specific in-house sanctions to address minor rule infractions.

o The diversion program is in a good position to apply services that may help
reduce future recidivism. The outcome evaluation appeared to show that
educational level has a controlling effect on, though not a direct relationship to,
reduced recidivism. Defendants with higher educational levels who are subject
to criminal justice supervision may be less involved in future crime. This finding
suggests that future supervision efforts should include education components,
such as GED instruction, or encourage continued school enrollment. As the
sanction applied earliest in case processing, the diversion program is in an
excellent position to promote education to its participants.

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

Oregon: The Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program

This summary was adapted from the report An Outcome Program Evaluation
of the Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program, which presents
evaluation research conducted by Michael Finigan, Ph.D., Northwest
Professional Consortium, developed under technical assistance grant
SJI-96-06X-T-A-174 from the State Justice Institute.

The STOP (Sanction-Treatment-Opportunity-Progress) Drug Diversion
Program was initiated in 1991 to reduce the increasing backlog of drug cases in
Multnomah County and to encourage treatment for those with first- offense
drug charges.


Program Overview

The Multnomah County STOP program includes the following components:

o Court oversight and active judicial case management.

o Immediate access to a dedicated treatment resource.

o Drug testing.

o A range of intermediate sanctions.

In 1995, STOP added a series of enhancements to expand its target population
and to provide additional access to health, mental health, family intervention,
resource coordination, and aftercare services.

Goals and Objectives

STOP program goals were to reduce substance abuse by improving treatment
outcomes and to reduce recidivism by improving program impact. Objectives
for the first goal included the diversion and treatment of up to 700 clients from
the drug court docket in 1994 and 1995, successful program completion by 65
percent of program participants, and the delivery of drug-free babies borne by
all pregnant women in the program. Objectives for the second goal included a
recidivism rate of no more than 15 percent, a conviction rate of no more than
10 percent within 1 year following program completion, partnership and funding
with an outside institution to complete process and outcome evaluations, 1-year
followup on participants by program staff, and opportunities for program staff
to provide technical assistance to other Oregon jurisdictions wishing to
implement similar programs.

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

STOP program goals were to reduce substance abuse by improving treatment
outcomes and to reduce recidivism by improving program impacts.

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

Program Activities/Components

Judicial Process

After review by the district attorney, defendants are offered the opportunity for
drug court diversion at their first appearance before the court; they are eligible
only if the charge is for possession of a controlled substance (PCS) (not
distribution or manufacturing), preferably in small quantities. If there are
additional nondrug criminal charges, individuals are eligible provided conditions
of probation do not interfere with participation in the program. Between 900
and 1,100 cases per year are first-time appointments from district court to
petition for the STOP program, with from 400 to 700 actually being admitted
and participating in part of the program.

The STOP program is voluntary; when defendants petition to enter the STOP
track, they agree that if they fail the program, they will be tried solely on the
basis of the police report. This "stipulated facts" trial is brief with a swift and
sure sanction resulting from program failure. One negative side of this process is
that some of the "front-end" costs savings expected by a diversion program are
lost since legal representation and judicial time are required throughout the
process. Nonetheless, it clearly adds a powerful incentive to remain compliant
in the program, because a violation of any rule involves, at minimum, an
appearance before the judge who oversees the program.

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

About 46 percent of admitted cases graduate from the program.

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

Treatment

Treatment is provided by InAct, Inc., a private, nonprofit agency that provides
outpatient, multiphased intervention, including group counseling sessions and
acupuncture treatments. STOP clients are required to engage in group and
individual counseling sessions at InAct every weekday during the initial phase of
the program and once or twice a week during the final phases. The court
provides active case management involving monthly status hearings at which
time the court reviews drug test results and treatment progress. Other
specialized services are also available, including women's services, Hispanic
services, and a literacy program. The level of intervention and accountability for
STOP clients far exceeds what is typical in outpatient treatment. About 46
percent of admitted cases graduate from the program.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

The evaluation had two major goals: 


o Assess whether program participants have positive outcomes particularly
focusing on outcomes related to criminal recidivism (e.g., lower subsequent
arrests and convictions and more compliant probation or parole supervision).

o Assess the ratio of the program's cost to the avoided costs resulting from the
program's positive outcomes (if any). 

The study sample included all cases--those who graduated and those who did
not complete the program but received partial treatment; incompletion could be
due to either drug test failure or failure to appear (FTA) at a status hearing.
Because the period from 1991 to 1992 was the early implementation phase, a
period often premature for reviewing an innovative program such as this, the
sample was taken from the 1994 to 1995 period to study results of the fully
implemented program. The sample included 150 subjects who were diverted
and graduated and 150 subjects who were diverted but did not graduate, which
included those who received a great deal of treatment and those who received
little; random selection was used for both the graduate sample and the
nongraduate sample. The groups did not differ significantly in gender, age, or
race/ethnicity composition. Both groups were approximately 72 percent male,
the average participant age was 33, and the proportion of nonwhites was 23
percent. Hispanic clients were excluded due to a preponderance of Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) holds. Because the groups differed, however,
in the number of prior arrests, this category was used as a control variable. The
mean number of prior arrests for all program participants was 2.5; however,
graduates averaged 1.6 prior arrests, while nongraduates averaged 3.4.

The selection of a comparison group is a critical element in a nonrandomized
research design. In this case, the best comparison group for the STOP program
graduates was a contemporaneous sample of arrestees who were eligible for
the program but were not able to participate. These individuals needed to meet
the following criteria: a charge for PCSI or PCSII (preferably not with large
amounts of the drug in possession) and eligibility but not entrance into the
STOP program. Figures given by the Metropolitan Public Defender's Office
indicated that approximately 2,400 individuals were arrested each year with
drug offenses as the primary charge and 4,400 were arrested with drug
offenses as the secondary charge. Because 400 to 500 defendants, out of an
estimated 1,100 first-time appointments from district court to petition for the
STOP program, were actually admitted to the program, the comparison group
was rather large. The reasons for nonentry into STOP included withdrawal,
client refusal (choosing trial instead), court denial, and prior bench warrants.
These reasons had the potential to introduce a bias that may have made these
clients unfit to be part of a comparison group; to offset this bias, a
representative matched sample approach was used. County and state
databases were used to compile a pool of eligible clients who were randomly
selected to be representative of program participants based on the following:
gender, age, race/ethnicity, and prior criminal history. This effort produced a
sample of 150 individuals with backgrounds similar to those who had entered
the program. There were no statistically significant differences between the two
groups on these critical control variables.

Data were collected on the three study groups (graduates, nongraduates, and
comparison group) on treatment outcomes for 2 years before and 2 years after
respective criterion dates. The criterion date for graduates was the date the
client graduated from the STOP program; for nongraduates, the date the client
left the program; and for the comparison group, the date the client received the
STOP appointment. Data were collected using various sources including but
not limited to Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS), Client Process
Monitoring System (CPMS), and Adult and Family Services.

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

Data were collected on the three study groups (graduates, nongraduates, and
comparison group) on treatment outcomes for 2 years before and 2 years after
the respective criterion dates.

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

The key outcome variables (performance measures) focused on the following
societal outcomes:

o Subsequent arrests.

o Subsequent convictions.

o Subsequent incarcerations.

o Types of crime committed.

o Supervision experiences.

o Use of public assistance resources, including food stamps.

Supervision focused on providing a positive reentry of the criminal into the
community. Signs of positive adjustment included finding employment, receiving
training and education, receiving substance-abuse treatment and counseling,
finding housing, and using other services to develop a noncriminal lifestyle. To
assist in the analysis of these positive adjustment outcome measures, a scale of
positive adjustment for parolees was designed, adapted from Latessa and Vita
(1988). Data collection staff used this scale to measure each client's adjustment
in becoming a productive member of society after examining the client's
supervision officer file. 

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

Supervision focused on providing a positive reentry of the criminal into the
community.

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

Outcome data were also used to assess the relative cost/benefits of the STOP
program to the taxpayer. This study focused on "avoided costs" or costs to
taxpayers had the participants not received treatment. The cost-to-taxpayers
approach measured the costs related to untreated substance abuse that was
paid by taxpaying citizens. Avoided costs were assessed for Multnomah
County taxpayers and Oregon taxpayers and included criminal justice system
costs (police protection from crime, adjudication, jail, supervision), victim
losses, theft losses, health-care services, and public assistance. 

The primary analysis strategy was to examine each outcome measure for all
three sample groups and analyze a covariance model with prior arrests as the
chief covariate. If statistical significance was gained for the model, individual
comparisons (e.g., graduates versus eligible candidates) were tested for
significance. This method was preferred since a series of bivariate tests can
occasionally produce spurious statistical significance.

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

Substance abuse is one of the strongest motivating factors for an individual to
continue criminal activity.

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

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Substance abuse is one of the strongest motivating factors for an individual to
continue criminal activity. A study of substance use, abuse, and dependence in
the Multnomah County Justice Center found that approximately two-thirds of
those arrested were recent users of drugs (based on urinalysis) and that about
half could be classified as clinically dependent on either alcohol or drugs. Drug
use played a major role in the life of this population. Reducing substance abuse
should have had a positive effect on reducing criminal recidivism.


Subsequent New Arrests

Participants Versus Comparison Group: Those who participated in STOP had
61 percent fewer subsequent arrests over a 2-year period than the control
comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates had 49
percent fewer subsequent new arrests than nongraduates over a 2-year period.

Amount of Program Completed: For those who completed less than one-third
of the program, the rate of subsequent arrests was more than twice that of
those who completed at least a third of the program (139 rearrests versus 62
rearrests per hundred participants). Participating in a substantial portion of the
program had positive effects on recidivism. 

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

Completing and graduating from the STOP program had the most positive
effect on reducing recidivism.

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

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Program graduates had 76
percent fewer total subsequent arrests than the comparison group over a 2-year
period.

Completing and graduating from the STOP program had the most positive
effect on reducing recidivism.

Subsequent Serious Arrests (Felony Type A and B)

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: Clients who participated in
the STOP program had 64 percent fewer subsequent felony arrests than the
comparison group over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates had 56
percent fewer subsequent Class A and B felony arrests over a 2-year period
than program participants who did not graduate.


Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: STOP graduates had 80
percent fewer total subsequent felony arrests than the comparison group clients
over a 2-year period.

Subsequent Convictions

In Oregon, new arrests are a better measure of recidivism than convictions or
incarcerations for two reasons: (1) most new arrests reported in LEDS are
felony arrests and most lead to some kind of conviction and (2) actual
adjudication outcomes are dependent on variables that are difficult to interpret
as outcome measures. A combination of plea bargaining, jail release or transfer
programs, and prior bench warrant issues complicate sentencing and
incarceration in any given case. Nonetheless, it is interesting to examine the
rates of conviction among the three groups.

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 57-percent 
difference between the two groups in total convictions over a 2-year period,
with those participating in STOP having fewer total convictions than the
comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was a 51-percent
difference between the two groups in total subsequent convictions over a 
2-year period, with a conviction rate of 59 per 100 nongraduates compared
with 29 per 100 graduates.

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Program graduates were
convicted at a rate of 29 new convictions per 100 participants in a 2-year
period compared with 111 per 100 for the comparison group. This was a 
74-percent difference between graduates and the comparison group in total
subsequent convictions in a 2-year period.

Subsequent Drug Arrests

Since a drug-related arrest was the chief criterion for eligibility in the STOP
Drug Court Diversion Program, and since drug treatment was a central part of
the diversion, examining the rate of subsequent arrests for drug-related crimes
was of particular interest. All subsequent drug-related arrests collected from
LEDS for each group were felonies.

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 72-percent
difference between participants and the comparison group in total subsequent
drug-related arrests over a 2-year period (22 new drug-related arrests per 100
participants compared with 78 per 100 of the comparison group).

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was a 56-percent
difference between graduates and nongraduates in total subsequent
drug-related arrests over a 2-year period (12 rearrests per 100 graduates and
27 rearrests per 100 of nongraduates).

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: There was an 85-percent
difference between the two groups in total subsequent drug-related arrests over
a 2-year period (12 rearrests per 100 graduates compared with 78 rearrests
per 100 of the comparison group).

A substantial difference between program participants and the comparison
group existed in the rate of drug-related arrests in the 2-year period after the
program. The difference in drug-related arrests between groups was greater
than the difference in total new arrests. The STOP program appeared to have
its greatest effect on reducing subsequent drug arrests. 

Subsequent Property Crime Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 58-percent 
difference between program participants and the comparison group in total
subsequent felony property arrests over a 2-year period. STOP participants
had a rate of 13 new arrests per every 100 participants after leaving the
program compared with 31 per 100 of the comparison group. STOP program
participants had a total of 2 new subsequent serious property crime arrests per
100 participants compared with 6 per 100 of the comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates were
rearrested at a rate of 7 new felony property crime arrests per 100 participants
compared with 10 per 100 of nongraduates. This was a 30-percent difference
between the two groups over a 2-year period. STOP program graduates had a
total of 2 new subsequent felony property crime arrests per 100 participants
compared with 3 per 100 nongraduates.

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Graduates were rearrested at
a rate of 7 new felony property crime arrests per 100 compared with 29 per
100 of the comparison group who were eligible but did not participate in the
program. This is a 76-percent difference over a 2-year period. STOP program
graduates had a total of 2 new subsequent felony property crime arrests per
100 participants compared with 6 per 100 of the comparison group.

A substantial difference in the rate of all property crime arrests existed in the
2-year period after the program for program participants compared with the
comparison group. Graduates, in particular, had far fewer subsequent property
crime arrests than the comparison group. The percentage differential in property
crime arrest was similar to the difference in total new arrests for all
comparisons.

Subsequent Personal Crime Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: STOP participants had
subsequent felony (Class A and B) arrests at a rate of 1 per 100 participants in
a 2-year period compared with 4 per 100 of the comparison group. This was a
75-percent difference over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: No graduates were
rearrested for serious personal crimes. But the rearrest rate was 2 per 100 in
the nongraduate group. This represented a 100-percent difference over a 
2-year period. 

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: No graduates were rearrested
but the rearrest rate was 4 per 100 of the comparison group. This was a
100-percent difference in total subsequent serious personal crime arrests over a
2-year period.

A substantial difference in the rate of all personal crime arrests existed in the
2-year period after the program for participants compared with the comparison
group. Graduates, in particular, had far fewer subsequent personal crime arrests
than the members in the comparison group. The percentage differential in total
personal crime arrests was similar to the difference in total new arrests for all
comparisons; however, the percentage difference in serious personal crime
arrest was greater than the difference in total new arrests for all comparisons. 

Subsequent Parole Violation Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: STOP participants had
subsequent probation or parole violation arrests at a rate of 2 new arrests per
100 participants compared with 10 per 100 of the comparison group. This was
an 80-percent difference over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was no difference
between the two groups in a 2-year period. Rearrests for new probation or
parole violations were 2 per 100 graduates compared with 2 per 100 
nongraduates. 

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Graduates were rearrested at
a rate of 2 new probation or parole violations per 100 whereas 10 per 100 of
the comparison group were rearrested for violations, representing an 
80-percent difference over a 2-year period.

A substantial difference between program participants and the comparison
group existed in the rate of parole or probation violation arrests in the 2-year
period after the program. Graduates and nongraduates, however, showed no
difference in subsequent parole or probation violation arrests. 

Positive Adjustment Score of 1 or More

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: More than half of STOP
participants for whom supervision records were available scored at least 1
point on the Positive Adjustment Scale, a set of indicators measuring factors
such as employment, enrollment in school, standard of living, participation in
self-improvement programs, and other important variables of positive
community adjustment and successful supervision. Just under 40 percent of the
comparison group individuals scored as well. 

Positive Adjustment Score of 4 or More

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: Twenty-seven percent of
program participants for whom supervision records were available scored 4 or
more points compared with 10 percent of the comparison group.

Cost Analysis

The STOP Drug Diversion Program saved the Multnomah County Criminal
Justice System $2,476,795 per cohort during the 2 years of data collection
after participation in the program. The study estimated the avoided costs to the
taxpayers of Oregon to be $10,223,532 over 2 years. Every taxpayer dollar
spent on cohorts of clients who participated in the program produced $2.50 in
cost savings to the taxpayers of Multnomah County. The ratio of benefit to the
Oregon taxpayer was $10 saved for every $1 spent.

Advantages of the STOP Drug Diversion Program

The STOP Drug Diversion Program in Multnomah County offers advantageous
features in both its court management and its substance-abuse treatment
procedures.

In court management:


o A judge overseeing the process, creating a continuity in the judicial process.

o A "stipulated facts" trial, allowing for swift and sure punishment for program
failure.

o Careful court monitoring with frequent drug testing and frequent appearances
before the judge.

In substance-abuse treatment:

o A single provider, ensuring consistency on the treatment side.

o A multiphase, multiaspect 12-month treatment program.

o Frequent drug testing.

o Court-enforced attendance and progress.

Summary

This study had certain limitations. Because it was retrospective, random
assignment to treatment and control conditions was not possible (and probably
not possible even if it had been a contemporaneous sample). Therefore, some
unmeasured (and possibly unmeasurable) differences may have existed among
the three groups that affected the study outcomes. Nonetheless, the comparison
group was matched on all critical variables, removing possible sources of bias. 

This study found that program participants, especially graduates, had
significantly fewer subsequent arrests and convictions, particularly felony
arrests, and had lower rates of drug-related arrests--both of which suggest that
the program may have had an effect on lowering participant involvement with
drugs.

This lower rate of recidivism, in turn, affects public safety and public costs.
Fewer arrests and convictions lessen the pressure on the criminal justice
system, particularly the jail system, and can lead to more reasonable loads on
the current system, fewer future expenditures, or both. Lower rates of
recidivism can also result in savings to taxpayers in terms of costs for dealing
with new offenses, treating victims, and improving safety. 

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

This study found that program participants, especially graduates, had
significantly fewer subsequent arrests and convictions.

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

Illinois: Homicide and Violent Crime Strike Force in Madison and St. Clair
Counties

This summary was adapted from the report An Evaluation of the Homicide and
Violent Crime Strike Force Program in Madison and St. Clair Counties, 
which presents evaluation research conducted by Richard Schmitz, J.D., and 
Pinky S. Wassenberg, Ph.D., J.D., Center for Legal Studies, University of
Illinois at Springfield. 

Madison and St. Clair Counties experienced severe levels of violent crime
during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The cause of the influx of crime may
have been due to educational inadequacies, loss of industry, and the lack of
funding to local law enforcement. In response to this epidemic, the Homicide
and Violent Crime Strike Force (hereinafter referred to as the "task force") was
created by the Illinois State Police (ISP) Department and the Illinois Attorney
General's (AG's) Office. 

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

The task force was designed as a joint venture between ISP and the Illinois
AG's Office.

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

Program Overview

The task force was designed as a joint venture between ISP and the Illinois
AG's Office. The ISP program component was made up of one supervisor and
four case agents who were experienced homicide investigators with strong
community ties to the selected counties. The AG's Office program component,
made up of two attorneys, one investigator, and one secretary who served both
agencies, was designed to assist local prosecutors in the prosecution of task
force cases and give legal advice to the State Police component. It was
anticipated that task force attorneys would occasionally take a lead role in the
prosecution of task force cases. Resources and personnel levels were
consistent throughout the program, but there were changes in task force
operating procedures and interagency relationships. These are discussed in
detail under Program Activities/Components on page 51. 


This study focuses on St. Clair and Madison Counties in Illinois, which are
located in the southwestern section of the state and share a border with
Missouri. Their combined population in 1992 was approximately 516,000.
More than two-thirds of all persons residing in St. Clair County are white, as
are 90 percent of those in Madison County; during the past 30 years, both
counties experienced increases in nonwhite populations. Both counties report
more female residents than male: 52.2 percent in St. Clair and 52.1 percent in
Madison. Less than 15 percent of the population in either county possess a
bachelor's or higher degree.

According to the Regional Economic Information System, St. Clair County
residents reported a 1994 per capita personal income (PCPI) of $18,452,
compared with $20,530 reported by Madison County residents. This placed
St. Clair County 52nd (out of 102) in the state for income level and represented
approximately 78.2 percent of the state average ($23,611) and approximately
85 percent of the national average ($21,696). Madison County was ranked
22nd in the state, and its PCPI was 87 and 94.6 percent of state and national
averages, respectively. Of all St. Clair families, 13.9 percent reported an
income below the poverty level; 43.4 percent of all single female
head-of-household families lived in poverty. In Madison County, fewer families
(8.5 percent) reported an income below the poverty level with 32.9 percent of
households headed by females falling into that category. In both counties, the
majority of residents were employed in wholesale and retail trade industries:
22.5 percent for St. Clair and 21.9 percent for Madison. In St. Clair, 14.0 and
10.7 percent were employed in manufacturing and health care, respectively; in
Madison, the percentages for manufacturing and health care were 21.3 and 8.6
percent, respectively. 

Two indicators are commonly used to report levels of crime and subsequent
police response: the number of crimes known to law enforcement as having
occurred within a particular jurisdiction and the number of arrests made. Both
of these indicators were considered for the jurisdictional area covered by the
Homicide and Violent Crime Strike Force. During 1991, 25,504 serious crimes
were known to police working in the 2 counties as having occurred within their
jurisdictions. Of these, 14.2 percent were violent and 85.8 percent were
property related. From 1982 to 1995, a sizable increase in the number of
serious crimes known to law enforcement was observed in St. Clair County
(40.6 percent), while Madison County experienced a decline. During the same
period, the majority of violent crimes that occurred within these two counties
occurred in St. Clair County; on average, less than 20 percent of all violent
crimes known to police over this time period occurred in Madison County.
Based on Illinois Uniform Crime Reports (IUCR) data, law enforcement
agencies within the 2 counties arrested an average of 5,073 individuals each
year for serious crimes between 1982 and 1995. The majority of individuals
arrested each year were from St. Clair County. Similar findings were revealed
when only violent crime arrests were considered--that is, while the 2 counties
averaged 1,163 arrests involving violent crimes each year, the majority of such
arrests originated in St. Clair County. Madison County reported a higher
incidence of arrests for criminal sexual assault while St. Clair County reported
higher numbers of arrests for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.

During the years 1992 through 1996, the territory covered by the Homicide
and Violent Crime Strike Force weathered congressional redistricting, loss of
industries (plant closings and the flood of 1993) in the region, political scandals,
and acknowledgment of educational inadequacies. In 1994, the East St. Louis
(ESL) School District 189 was taken over by the state of Illinois after it was
revealed that the district was operating $2.7 million in debt and holding classes
in unsafe, dilapidated buildings. However, it also received millions of dollars in
revenue generated by gambling in the most impoverished city, East St. Louis,
and a new railway system that linked St. Clair County with downtown St. Louis
and the St. Louis airport (Metro-Link Rail). Each of these factors may have
affected the ease with which the task force was able to interact with
communities and their political leaders. Also during these years, other law
enforcement initiatives operating throughout the area may have affected the
impact of the task force in realizing its goals.

Goals and Objectives 

The program goals for the Illinois State Police component were to:

o Select experienced homicide investigators who also had significant ties to the
communities in which the task force operated.

o Obtain the involvement of local law enforcement officers, especially those of
the ESL Police Department.

The program goals for the Illinois Attorney General's Office were to:

o Assist local prosecutors in the prosecution of task force cases.

o Give legal advice to the State Police component.

o Take a lead role as requested in the prosecution of task force cases. 

The objectives of the evaluation of the Homicide and Violent Crime Strike
Force in St. Clair and Madison Counties included: 

o Documenting and examining the original goals of the task force, its initial
operating procedures, practices, organizational structure, and resource
allocation, as well as its internal and external relationships.

o Documenting and examining changes in the structure, procedures, practices,
resources, and relationships that occurred over time.

o Documenting and examining the impact of the task force on cases, law
enforcement, prosecutors, the judicial system, and the communities in which it
operated. 

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

The main activity of the task force was investigating homicides and other violent
crimes (which had already been investigated by other agencies in the two
counties) by combining the resources of ISP and the AG's Office.

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

Program Activities/Components

The main activity of the task force was investigating homicides and other violent
crimes (which had already been investigated by other agencies in the two
counties) by combining the resources of ISP and the AG's Office. The AG's
Office investigator was the primary source for the selection of cases for the task
force. The investigator reviewed unsolved homicide and violent crime cases and
then selected cases to be moved directly to the ISP squad leader. The
perceived solvabililty of a case was the greatest determinant in whether the case
was accepted by the task force. As the task force evolved, cases were also
referred by local law enforcement agencies.

The task force, however, did engage in other activities. For example, it
investigated four shootings by local police officers. In addition, investigators
from the task force rendered assistance to ISP, federal law enforcement
agencies, and local police departments. Because this assistance did not entail
extensive involvement of the task force, neither the task force nor the evaluation
counted these "assist cases" as task force cases. 

The task force experienced relative stability in both resources and personnel.
Two ISP case agents and one AG's Office attorney transferred out of the task
force. One of the case agents and the attorney left during the first year of
operations. The other case agent left in 1995. There were no other personnel
changes. Resources were also stable and generally deemed adequate to
accomplish the job.

As the two components of the task force adjusted to and more clearly defined
their roles in the internal operations of the task force, operating procedures
changed. The original design called for joint decisionmaking between both
components regarding whether to initiate investigation, proceed further with a
case, or ask for an arrest warrant and prosecution of a case. During the first
year of task force operations, the process moved away from attorney
participation in these decisions in all cases to consultation of the attorneys by
the ISP component on an as-needed basis. Within the first year of operations,
an understanding was reached whereby the ISP component controlled task
force activities up to the point of arrest and the AG's Office component
controlled task force activities after arrest.

The task force was unable to realize its goal of local law enforcement
participation from the ESL Police Department. At the time of task force
initiation, the department was understaffed and coping with the demands of high 
violent crime rates. On the one hand, the city was financially unable to
contribute resources to replace any officers who might join the task force; on
the other hand, the task force was not able to pay any local officers who
wanted to participate in task force activities and was thus only able to obtain
the services of one local officer from the Alton Police Department. He was
recalled after 9 months.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

The evaluation included four parts. First, the evaluation team evaluated the
process through which the task force was designed and implemented. This
evaluation was divided into two sections--one describing the initiation and
design of the task force and one describing the evolution of the task force since
its inception. Second, the team examined the impact of the task force on the
cases handled, law enforcement and the judicial process, and the larger
community. Third, by combining the information gained in the implementation
and impact evaluations, the team assessed whether the task force was a viable
approach to the investigation and prosecution of homicides and violent crimes.
Fourth, the evaluation team made recommendations for the future development
of the task force in Madison and St. Clair Counties and for those interested in
starting similar task forces elsewhere.

A variety of strategies was used to obtain the information needed to describe
the operating procedures and practices of the task force. Two sources of
information were central to the evaluation: task force program documents
maintained by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) and
interviews with task force participants. The program documents obtained from
ICJIA included task force grant applications, correspondence between ICJIA
and the task force, and the task force's monthly data reports. UCR data were
also used in the evaluation. Additional information was obtained from personal
interviews with ISP and AG's Office administrators, task force personnel, and
other agencies or individuals involved in the creation and development of the
program. These interviews were based on written protocols developed by the
evaluation team in conjunction with ICJIA. 

The impact portion of the report relied on quantitative and qualitative data
collected to describe the effectiveness of the task force program. This
three-part analysis investigated the impact of the task force on the cases chosen
for investigation; law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts; and the broader
community.

The goals of the case analysis were to describe the cases handled by the task
force and to examine the movement of those cases through critical decision
points in the criminal justice process. 

In assessing the impact of the task force on both criminal justice staff and the
broader community, evaluation project staff interviewed task force personnel,
local law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and
community leaders. Areas of inquiry included their impressions of the effect of
the task force on the behavior of local law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors, the ability of these local entities to deal with homicide and violent
crime, and the perceptions of the public.

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

In assessing the impact of the task force on both criminal justice staff and the
broader community, evaluation project staff interviewed task force personnel,
local law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and
community leaders.

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

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Task Force Impact on Cases

The task force handled 72 cases involving the investigation of crimes in St. Clair
and Madison Counties. The majority of these cases involved crimes that
eventually produced charges of first-degree murder against suspects. Most of
these cases were investigated to a conclusion, and most defendants charged as
the result of task force investigations were either convicted or pled guilty and
received sentences harsher than state averages. Given that the task force
accepted cases that other law enforcement agencies felt were not progressing,
the task force had a clear, positive impact on the cases it chose to handle. 

Fifty-seven of the task force cases involved murder, and another 10 involved
assault or battery. The task force experienced great success in obtaining arrests
and convictions in these cases. The impact was more strongly felt in St. Clair
County, which was the source of more than 90 percent of the task force cases.
In 43 percent of the cases, one or more defendants had either pled guilty or
been convicted. In another 11.1 percent of the cases, one or more suspects
had been arrested, but the cases had not progressed beyond that stage. In 16.7
percent of the cases, a suspect had been identified but was deceased. Of the
33 task force cases that went to trial, 30 resulted in convictions and 3 resulted
in mistrials. 

However, it should be noted that cases were not always concluded due to task
force efforts. For example, 12 cases were closed because the defendant or
defendants died. Incomplete information regarding the extent to which a case
had progressed prior to being assumed by the task force made it impossible to
determine the relative impact of the task force's investigation on case resolution
compared with the efforts of the law enforcement agency initially responsible for
the investigation. In addition, the task force did not prosecute most of the court
cases generated by task force investigations. Most of the court cases were
prosecuted by a lead prosecutor from a state's attorney's office with some level
of assistance from the task force attorneys. No documentation existed to allow
the evaluation team to assess the extent of the assistance provided by task force
attorneys in these cases. 

Task Force Impact on Law Enforcement, the Courts, and Communities

Those interviewed generally agreed that the work of the task force enhanced
the ability of local prosecutors to gain convictions in homicides and serious
crimes. Prosecutors, from both the local state's attorney's office and the AG's
Office program component, were especially appreciative of the efforts of case
agents in locating witnesses and ensuring their presence for trial as well as other
trial preparation assistance. The ability of the case agents to deal with witnesses
was also highly regarded by prosecutors and judges who felt the work of some
local departments closely approximated the work of the task force case agents
while other departments fell far short due to either lack of expertise or lack of
resources. All agreed some undeterminable number of cases would not have
been prosecuted but for the task force.

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

Those interviewed generally agreed that the work of the task force enhanced
the ability of the local prosecutors to gain convictions in homicides and serious
crimes.

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

The impact of the task force on the work of local law enforcement, particularly
the ESL Police Department, is difficult to assess, other than anecdotally. The
addition of four homicide investigators into an area with an understaffed police
department should have helped relieve the pressure on the local department. In
fact, most task force personnel believed their presence allowed the department
to focus more resources on current cases. Other factors may also have allowed
the department to focus on "hot" cases. During the period of the grant, the ESL
Police Department was able to make significant additions to its forces, and the
homicide rate in the city decreased. These factors may also have freed up time
for police officers to investigate other crimes.

Those interviewed regarding the impact of the task force on the homicide rate in
Madison and St. Clair Counties were nearly unanimous in their agreement that
the task force was a factor in the decline in the number of homicides in the
two-county region. They were also near unanimity in their belief that the precise
impact of the task force was unmeasurable. Along with the task force, the
freeing up of staff of the ESL Police Department, the infusion of funds from
river boat gambling, the installation of Metro-Link Rail commuter train service,
and the plethora of other law enforcement initiatives operating in the area were
mentioned as factors in the improved outlook for the area.

Several explanations of the task force's role in the declining homicide rate were
offered. First, the task force was responsible for removing from the streets
several persons suspected of killing more than one person. Thirty suspects had
killed two or more people, and six suspects appeared in more than one task
force case, indicating a pattern of homicidal conduct. Second, as stated above,
not only did the task force clear cases, it gave the ESL Police Department an
opportunity to react more effectively to new cases by freeing up the local
department's resources from some time-consuming cases.

To assess the impact of the task force on the court system and the judiciary, the
project staff interviewed task force personnel, as well as prosecutors, judges,
and defense attorneys who were involved in task force cases. The staff inquired
about the general behavior of the judiciary and differences in sentencing
practices compared with similar cases handled by local law enforcement.
Members of the judiciary were also asked for their impressions of the work of
the task force. None of the individuals interviewed identified any differences in
general behavior or demeanor on the part of the judiciary in task force cases
when compared with other cases of similar magnitude. However, most task
force members felt that their cases, in some measure, obtained harsher
sentences than similar cases emanating from other agencies; they felt the
sentences were harsher because their cases were better investigated and
organized. 

The prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges interviewed generally disagreed
with this assertion; they felt too many variables influence sentencing to allow any
judgment about the impact of the task force on sentences. The nature of the
crime and the past criminal history of the defendant were frequently cited
examples of important variables that influenced sentencing. 

These professionals agreed that the extent to which a case was investigated and
prepared influenced the likelihood of a guilty verdict. There was also general
agreement that task force cases were well prepared, witnesses were present at
the trial, and task force witnesses were poised and prepared for testimony.
Also, one trial judge revealed a way in which the clarity of guilt has an impact
upon sentencing--the degree to which guilt is clear makes handing down a
severe sentence easier, he indicated, because there is less concern about the
verdict being overturned. Any error at trial would most likely be deemed a
harmless error by an appellate court.

The degree to which the number of task force requests from local law
enforcement changed over time is difficult to ascertain. The task force did not
keep records of the number of requests; only the number of cases opened by
the task force was available as a limited indication of the number of requests
received. When task force members were asked about changes in the number
of local referrals, responses were inconsistent. Those who believed requests
increased thought that increased local awareness of the task force accounted
for the change. Those who believed requests decreased gave one or more of
the following reasons for their belief: the task force reduced the number of
unsolved cases, so the pool of potential task force cases was depleted; local
law enforcement was better able to handle cases because of better staffing or
other reasons; local law enforcement wanted to keep the cases local because of
competition with the task force; or homicide was down in the area, thus
reducing the pool of potential cases. 

Community members from Madison and St. Clair Counties were interviewed
regarding awareness of the task force and the perceived impact it had in their
communities. The initial design of the evaluation project expected surveys of
community leaders, but because of the small number of persons involved,
interviews were used as a means of obtaining more detailed and complete
information. The majority of community members stated that they were aware
of the task force; however, perceptions of its purpose varied and included
conducting undercover police work to seize drugs and recover automobiles
acquired through drug trafficking, investigating all major crimes, assisting smaller
cities that lacked the resources and personnel to handle major crime
investigations, investigating homicides and domestic abuse that leads to
homicide, and clearing homicides that were left unsolved due to insufficient
evidence. Of those interviewed, most rated the task force as very important and
necessary. The consensus was that many old cases would have remained
untouched without the task force initiative. Regarding the task force's impact on
the communities of the two counties, responses ranged from having no impact
to having significant impact. When asked for suggestions regarding the task
force, community members suggested involving more resources and people.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Task force participation resulted in several benefits to the participating agencies.
All task force personnel identified one or more of the following three items as a
benefit: clearance of cases that otherwise would have remained unsolved;
enhanced recognition and prestige for law enforcement in general and the
Illinois State Police Department and Attorney General's Office in particular; and
additional experience conducting homicide investigations or prosecutions.

Among those interviewed, there was a strong perception that the task force had
an impact on the homicide and violent crime rates in both counties but
particularly in St. Clair, the source of most task force cases. This impact cannot
be empirically verified because multiple initiatives designed to reduce violent
crime in St. Clair County operated simultaneously with the task force. Also
major economic and demographic changes in East St. Louis at this time may
have had an impact on the crime rate. 

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

Among those interviewed, there was a strong perception that the task force had
an impact on the homicide and violent crime rates in both counties but
particularly in St. Clair, the source of most task force cases.

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


Interview data suggest that several elements were key to task force success:

o Experienced homicide investigators who had the added advantage of being
familiar with the communities in which they operated.

o Resources for investigators to travel to conduct interviews and collect 
evidence. 

o The ability of investigators to concentrate on a case without having to be
diverted to more recent crimes, which allowed a level of concentration and
specialization usually not possible in police departments.

o Modification of a pool of potentially solvable cases by an AG's Office
investigator who had been a homicide investigator in ESL law enforcement long
enough to be familiar with cases that he believed could have been solved had
sufficient resources been available.

o Early successes that gave the task force a reputation for reliability, which led
to more case referrals and enhanced credibility with prosecutors and judges.

Evaluation of future initiatives similar to the task force would be aided by
establishing an evaluation team early in the history of the unit. The evaluation
team would then be able to have input regarding the data collection protocols to
be established. In spite of the task force secretary's substantial efforts to
anticipate evaluator data needs, much of the data needed to analyze this task
force's impact on its cases had not been collected and could not be
reconstructed in a timely fashion due to their dispersal among local law
enforcement, the task force, and local prosecutors.

While the task force experienced many successes, its original vision fell short in
two areas: participation from local law enforcement and the use of the AG's
Office attorneys. Jurisdictions contemplating similar initiatives should carefully
consider this experience.

All parties involved in the initiative agreed that the primary focus of task force
operations should be on East St. Louis due to its high per capita homicide rate
and its high number of unsolved homicides. It was felt the task force could help
address the crime problem with its resources and skilled personnel and also
assist in improving the ability of the various police departments to deal with
serious crimes by bringing local officers into the task force operation. Although
the program narrative provided for the full-time assignment of two ESL police
officers, the program budget did not allow any grant funds to pay the salaries of
local officers. During the conception and beginning operation of the task force,
the ESL Police Department was understaffed, overwhelmed with a serious
crime wave, and poorly financed. Interviews with officials in more financially
resourceful communities revealed that they could not afford to lose officers and
generally felt they should not be responsible for assigning officers to a task force
they perceived was primarily concerned with another city's crime problem. If
similar initiatives are undertaken in the future and local participation is regarded
as important, provision must be made for the payment of salaries for assigned
officers.

While the underrepresentation of local law enforcement appears to be mostly a
financial issue, the reduced use of the AG's Office attorneys by local
prosecutors and by ISP seems to have been more complex and subject to
various interpretations. The original task force design specified a very active
role for the AG's Office attorneys in supporting local prosecutors and even
managing and leading some prosecutions--a role that was realized in Madison
County. However, the bulk of the task force investigations and prosecutions
involved St. Clair County cases; during the course of the grants, only two St.
Clair cases involved an AG's Office attorney as the lead prosecutor. 

One possible explanation for the difference in use by Madison and St. Clair
Counties may be related to familiarity with the AG's Office lead prosecutor.
Whereas the initial lead attorney for the AG's Office component had no criminal
prosecution experience, the subsequent lead prosecutor had been employed as
a special prosecutor in homicide and other serious cases in Madison County
(state's attorney's office) before joining the task force. No attorney had a similar
prior association with St. Clair County, although familiarity with and respect for
the lead prosecutor's credentials was evinced by the representatives of the St.
Clair County state's attorney's office. The more likely explanation for the lack of
use of the AG's Office attorney by St. Clair County appears to be a
philosophical preference for using local prosecutors.

Two recommendations may help similar future initiatives avoid some of the
frustrations experienced by the AG's Office attorneys. First, prior to initiation of
the project, the parameters and conditions for assistance should be clearly
established between the local prosecutor and any entity offering assistance to
the prosecutor. It appears that this was not accomplished in the case of the task
force. Second, outside assistance to local prosecutors may be of more value in
counties with staff too small to handle current caseloads or where specialized
expertise is not available in the local office.

The initial task force design also envisioned a substantial role for the AG's
Office attorneys in initial case screening and in decisionmaking regarding
whether to proceed with case investigations. After less than a year, the
involvement of the attorneys moved from regular to as needed, as determined
by the case agents or their squad leader. Several factors appear to have
contributed to this change. The initial staffing of the AG's Office component
with a lead attorney who had no criminal prosecution experience eroded the
faith of the ISP component in the ability of that attorney to make a positive
contribution to the process. Even after the replacement of the lead prosecutor
with an attorney whose credentials were respected by the ISP personnel, the
AG's Office attorneys were still involved only on an as-needed basis. The initial
staffing does not, however, provide an explanation for the continually limited
role of the attorneys in case-screening and investigation processes. Two factors
appear to account for the permanent nature of the change. First, while the lead
prosecutor's abilities were widely respected, he was not always available to the
task force. Eventually, the ISP component controlled the case up to an arrest
warrant, after which control of task force activity shifted to the AG's Office
component. Second, as the task force developed, even the ISP component
moved away from roundtable decisionmaking to a model that centered on joint
consultations between the investigator and the squad leader in the early phases
of case development and between the case agent and the squad leader for
decisions after assignment to a case agent.

The internal decisionmaking process that eventually took hold in the task force
seems to have worked well. The division of labor complemented the areas of
expertise of each component. In addition, the ISP component valued access to
legal advice when needed. The source of the legal advice and the amount of
resources devoted to the legal component were matters of disagreement among
task force members. In future projects, a careful appraisal should be made of
potential sources of legal consultation and the costs and benefits associated with
various sources. For example, using the local prosecutor for regular legal
consultation could result in a closer liaison; frequent contact could also increase
tension by providing opportunities for disagreement. Also, assignment of a
particular member of the prosecutor's office as legal counsel to a task force
might breed jealousy and resentment among other members of the prosecutor's
office. Each situation should be evaluated individually, taking into consideration
historical relationships and personal dynamics.

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

The internal decisionmaking process that eventually took hold in the task force
seems to have worked well.

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

Utah: The Utah Day Reporting Center--Success With Alternative Incarceration

This summary was adapted from the report The Utah Day Reporting Center:
Success with Alternative Incarceration, which presents evaluation research
conducted by Edward I. Byrnes and Russ Van Vleet, Social Research Institute,
Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah. The report A Review of
the Salt Lake Day Reporting Center, by Jan Solomon, Utah Department of
Corrections, Division of Field Operations, also provided information for the
Program Activities/Components and other sections.

Day reporting centers (DRCs) are a relatively new addition to the continuum of
intermediate sanctions for criminal offenses. They began in the United States
during the 1980s as a means of reducing rising jail and prison populations and
the huge costs associated with those rising populations. The Utah Department
of Corrections (UDC) opened its first DRC in Salt Lake City in 1994. 

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

The Utah DRC administers an intermediate sanction program geared to the
offender in need of additional structure and assistance beyond normal probation
or parole supervision.

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

Program Overview

The Utah DRC administers an intermediate sanction program geared to the
offender in need of additional structure and assistance beyond normal probation
or parole supervision. The program blends high levels of control with intensive
delivery of services needed by the offenders in the program, who are referred
from several sources for a variety of reasons. The program was designed to
serve high-risk/high-need offenders with drug and alcohol problems who have
committed a new offense or technical violation while on probation or parole.
Offenders are served in a manner that reduces the likelihood that they will be
incarcerated; by maintaining them in a community setting, the costs of
corrections in Utah are reduced. 

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the day reporting center are to reduce offender recidivism and
improve the ability of offenders to conform to community norms. Methods to
achieve these goals include providing therapeutic intervention to offenders
having difficulty succeeding on probation or parole and providing intensive
community supervision.

These methods are achieved for probationers and parolees by:

o Enhancing coping skills.

o Decreasing substance-abuse relapses.

o Increasing their ability to find work and stay employed.

o Structuring activities within the community. 

o Providing increased documentation for their supervising agents.

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

The goals of the day reporting center are to reduce offender recidivism and
improve the ability of offenders to conform to community norms.

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

Program Activities/Components

The day reporting center offers probationers and parolees:

o Educational opportunities.

o Development of employable skills.

o Psycho-educational programming.

o Substance-abuse treatment.

o Intensive mental health therapy.

o Increased contact between the offender and UDC staff.

o Daily structure.

The DRC is open 6 days a week with flexible hours to accommodate both
offender and programming needs. It is located in central Salt Lake City on
public transportation lines and is near services offenders need. Transportation is
provided for offenders residing in release facilities and halfway houses, and
offsite outreach sessions have been conducted to accommodate offenders. No
one set of services fits all offenders; services are rendered on an individual basis
to meet the needs of the offender, increase the potential for success, and reduce
recidivism. Some offenders are regularly or randomly tested for drugs. All
offenders receive more services than they would under normal probation or
parole, and the referring agent is kept informed of the offender's progress or
problems. Although operations have changed only slightly since the inception of
the program, additional treatment groups dealing with domestic violence and
sexual orientation have been added.

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

No one set of services fits all offenders; services are rendered on an individual
basis to meet the needs of the offender, increase the potential for success, and
reduce recidivism.

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

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

An evaluation of Salt Lake City's DRC was conducted to inform UDC staff
about policy decisions regarding other day reporting centers. As part of its
mission, the Division of Field Operations operates community programs that fall
on a continuum between routine supervision and highly structured community
residential programs. Since 1994 the Field Operations' continuum has included
a day reporting center for probationers and parolees in the Salt Lake City
metropolitan area. The main questions to be answered by this evaluation were:

o How much does participation in the day reporting center program help
reduce the number of criminal charges made against clients?

o How is the amount of participation related to reduced criminal charges?

As a theoretical framework for the evaluation, the restorative justice model
(Bazemore and Malony, 1994) was employed. The three major elements of this
model include public safety, accountability, and competency development:

o Public safety was assessed in two ways. In addition to the basic question of
recidivism (i.e., whether program participants returned to criminal activity), the
question of reduced criminal activity by individuals served by the program was
addressed. The amount of criminal activity engaged in by subjects prior to and
subsequent to receiving services was compared.

o Accountability was assessed through subjects' DRC discharge status and
compliance with the substance abstinence requirements of the program. 

o Competency development was assessed by examining the length of
participation in the program and the frequency of participation in group
intervention programming. The relationship between competency development
and criminal activity outcome was also evaluated. Characteristics related to
involvement with DRC, including parole or probation status, referral source,
and recent incarceration history, were also inspected for their relationship to
subject outcomes. 

Subjects

Subjects of the evaluation were 312 clients of DRC who were served and
discharged between July 31, 1995, and July 31, 1996. Of these, 13 (4.2
percent) were excluded because of excessive incarceration during the followup
period and 2 were unable to be located within the UDC database, leaving 297
subjects who were included in all data analyses. The male and female subjects
ranged in age from the early twenties to the fifties. A total of 124 (41.7 percent)
were probationers, and 173 (58.3 percent) were parolees. All data were
collected from UDC and DRC archives; subjects were not contacted directly
during the study.

Data Collection

Arrest records were examined to determine the number of criminal charges for
a period of 1 year prior to and subsequent to receiving DRC services. These
data were used to calculate the recidivism rate within 1 year and to make pre-
and post-DRC comparisons.

Charges were categorized as being:

o Technical (e.g., probation or parole violations).

o Alcohol and drug related.

o Other victimless (e.g., solicitation).

o Property related (e.g., theft, burglary).

o Person related (e.g., assault, robbery).

Arrest records included UDC custody data, which were used to determine
whether a subject had been incarcerated at the Utah State Prison (USP) within
a year before or after receiving DRC services. Evaluators obtained information
about dates of registration at DRC, referral sources, probation or parole
statuses, and DRC discharge statuses (successful, unsuccessful, other, or
referred). Data were also collected on the number of DRC intervention
activities subjects participated in, the educational tutoring received, and 
urinalysis results. 

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

Arrest records were examined to determine the number of criminal charges for
a period of 1 year prior to and subsequent to receiving DRC services.

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

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

Of the 297 subjects included in the analysis, 133 were charged in some
category within 1 year of receiving DRC services. This resulted in a recidivism
rate of 44.8 percent, with 55.2 percent of subjects remaining free of any
charges for 1 year after receiving DRC services. When recidivism is examined
in terms of technical versus criminal charges, a different picture develops. Of the
133 subjects who had post-DRC charges, 34 (26.6 percent) had charges that
were only technical, leaving 99 with criminal charges. Therefore, of the original
297 subjects, only 99 recidivated on criminal charges, resulting in a recidivism
rate of 33.3 percent. Thus, two-thirds of all the subjects remained free of
criminal charges for 1 year subsequent to receiving DRC services.

Study results indicate three main findings:

o Subjects displayed a statistically significant reduction in alcohol and drug
use, property crime offenses, and overall criminal charges during the first year
subsequent to receiving DRC services.

o The duration of DRC services was significantly related to the reduction in
alcohol and drug and overall criminal charges during that period, though some
of this effect decreased as DRC services duration increased beyond 120 days.

o The relationship between a subject's success at discharge from the DRC (as
assessed by DRC staff at the time of discharge) and reductions in the number of
his or her post-DRC alcohol and drug charges was statistically significant.

The statistically significant reduction in alcohol and drug use, property crime
offenses, and overall criminal charges among subjects illustrates the
achievement of the DRC mission and at least one requirement within the
restorative justice framework. In this framework, public safety is a key element,
and with the reduction in criminal activity that DRC clients demonstrated, the
public safety requirement of restorative justice appears to have been met.
Moreover, the expectations of the retributive model of justice, emphasizing
public safety, were also met (Umbreit, 1989).

The relationship between competency development variables and reduced
criminality initially appeared to be slight, as only duration of services significantly
predicted reduced criminality. This may have been due to the different
categories of duration of service to which offenders were assigned: less than or
equal to 90 days; 91 through 120 days; 121 through 180 days; and greater
than 180 days. The separate DRC groups that resulted were exposed to
multiple rehabilitative themes; it may be that the staff who implement the
different groups used an underlying process that is somewhat effective with their
particular client population over the time period provided.

DRC services are equally effective with clients regardless of their probation or
parole status, prior USP incarceration, or source of referral to DRC. These
referral characteristics did not significantly determine the reduction in post-DRC
charges; however, subjects' discharge status did significantly relate to outcome
in terms of alcohol and drug use. This suggests that DRC staff do an
exceptional job assessing the subjects' quality of program participation. 

Study limitations and strengths 

The study's primary limitation was the absence of a control group, which limits
the ability to make clearly causal statements from the data. The threat of
regression to the mean, a statistical artifact in pre/post designs, also exists. 

The study's primary strength was the outcome data--the presence or absence
of criminal charges. This was a strength for two reasons: (1) the data are
observations of actual behavior, which is less susceptible to inaccuracies that
might occur were the data self-reports of behavior or measures of subjects'
perceptions and (2) the occurrence of criminal charges is an easily understood
variable that interests both policymakers and the public at large. 

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

DRC services appear to assist in reducing the number of criminal charges,
particularly those for alcohol and drug and property crimes.

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

Summary

DRC services appear to assist in reducing the number of criminal charges,
particularly those for alcohol and drug use and property crimes, that subjects
face subsequent to program participation. It also seems that DRC staff can be
relied on to assess the quality of subject participation in a way that is useful for
determining the likelihood of subsequent criminal charges for alcohol and drug
offenses. Finally, the duration of DRC services appears to be the most strongly
predictive among the competency development factors for alcohol and drug
use, property, and overall offenses.

The study recommended that the Salt Lake DRC increase its staff to improve
the availability of services for offenders and that additional DRCs be opened in
other areas of the state.

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

Oklahoma: Drug Court Program

This summary was adapted from the following reports: An Evaluation of the
Freedom Ranch Inc. C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program and the Impact of Moral
Reconation Therapy (MRT) and Quality Control Systems, which presents
evaluation research conducted by William Nichols, M.S.W., and Travis Nelson
of ND Enterprises in Oklahoma City; and A Summary of An Evaluation of the
Freedom Ranch Inc. C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program and the Impact of Moral
Reconation Therapy and Quality Control Systems, by Kenneth D. Robinson.
Portions of this summary are excerpted from Moral Reconation Therapy and
Problem Behavior in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, by Doris L.
MacKenzie and Robert Brame with Arnold R. Waggoner and Kenneth D.
Robinson.

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) defines a
drug court as follows: a special court given the responsibility to handle cases
involving less serious drug-using offenders through a supervision and treatment
program. These programs include frequent drug testing, judicial and probation
supervision, drug counseling, treatment, educational opportunities, and the use
of sanctions and incentives. 

A drug court is responsible for all drug rehabilitation cases until all treatment
requirements are completed. The defendants are placed in the drug court
program for rehabilitation with frequent monitoring. A single judge provides
leadership and direction, which includes the supervision of the defendant's
participation in treatment. 

In September 1993, Freedom House opened its first outpatient alternative
sentencing program, A.T.T.A.C. (Alternative Training, Treatment, and
Corrections) in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The A.T.T.A.C. Program was initially
created in conjunction with the district attorney (DA) and judiciary to offer an
alternative to prison sentences for nonviolent, drug-abusing/drug-using
offenders. The A.T.T.A.C. Program, which was later renamed C.B.T.I.
(Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Institute), became the first freestanding
alternative sentencing model to use a unique cognitive behavioral program
called moral reconation therapy (MRT). In 1995, to further lower rearrest
rates, the A.T.T.A.C. Program gained the backing of judiciary leaders to
become the first drug court in the state.

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

The C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program defines its target population as repeat adult
felony offenders with identified substance-abuse problems.

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

Program Overview

The C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program defines its target population as repeat adult
felony offenders with identified substance-abuse problems. The core treatment
modality of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program is MRT, an objective, systematic
treatment system designed to enhance self-esteem and promote social, moral,
and positive behavioral growth in a progressive, step-by-step fashion. MRT has
from 12 to 16 steps, depending on the treatment population. MRT attempts to
change how drug abusers and alcoholics make decisions by raising their moral
reasoning. The program, developed by Dr. Greg Little and Dr. Ken Robinson
after years of research with felony drug offenders in a therapeutic community,
addresses the specific needs of the treatment-resistant populations. In addition,
C.B.T.I. uses cognitive models to address other needs--character
development, relapse prevention, parenting, and job readiness. Other services
include drug education, judicial supervision, urine drug screens, and frequent
supervision and contacts by C.B.T.I. staff. 

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

The goals of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program are to reduce overcrowding in
jails, provide treatment to offenders, and decrease crime.


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

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program are to reduce overcrowding in
jails, provide treatment to offenders, and decrease crime. To achieve these
goals, the following program objectives were set:

o Reduce rearrest and recidivism rates in Payne and Logan Counties through
incentive-based treatment opportunities.

o Address offenders' psychological, social, vocational, and educational needs
through screening evaluations, recommendations, and referrals, giving special
attention to histories of chronic substance abuse and social dysfunction.

o Facilitate increases in social skills, moral reasoning, identity growth, and life
purpose and decreases in sensation-seeking behaviors through the use of MRT.

o Increase child support collections in Payne and Logan Counties through the
use of the cognitive, behavioral Family Support and Parenting Program.

Program Activities/Components

The drug court has three supervisory tracks a defendant may follow. Each track
has specific eligibility criteria:

Track I--Prosecution Diversion Agreement (PDA) or Motion to Strike,
Subject to Call. This track is designed for:

o Drug-related or drug-motivated offenders (e.g., those charged with
possession of a controlled dangerous substance, burglary, possession of drug
paraphernalia, possession of stolen property, shoplifting, forging checks).

o First- or second-time felony offenders.

o Those who are at low risk of reoffending based on assessments by the 
district attorney, C.B.T.I. staff, and questionnaire results.

o Defendants motivated to deal with their substance use and abuse.

o Defendants admitting guilt and desiring change.

o Defendants agreeing to participate in drug court procedures/phases,
including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of
Phases I through V of the program, payment of fee for services and restitution
(as applicable), and completion of community service (as applicable).

Track II--Condition of Deferred Sentence or Condition of Suspended
Sentence. This track accepts:

o Those who have committed drug- or alcohol-related offenses (e.g., driving
under the influence, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession
of drug paraphernalia).

o Second- to multiple-time felony offenders.

o Those who are considered appropriate by the DA's office based on
C.B.T.I. assessment, questionnaire results, Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (DOC) presentencing reports, and alcohol assessment reports by
the local treatment provider.

o Defendants motivated to deal with their substance abuse and use.

o Defendants agreeing to participate in Drug Court procedures/phases,
including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of
Phases I through IV of the program, payment of fee for services and restitution
(as applicable), and completion of community service (as applicable).

Track III--Direct Referral to the Court Alternative. This track is for:

o Those whose condition of probation is overseen by DOC; those who have
been referred by DOC and the parole board; or those who have been referred
by DOC to male or female boot camps.

o Those who have been referred by the Department of Human Services to
treatment or those with drug- and/or alcohol-related problems and/or offenses.

o Defendants agreeing to participate in drug court procedures/phases,
including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of
Phases I through V of the program, payment of fee for services and restitution
(as applicable), and completion of community service (as applicable).

The treatment component of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program has five phases,
all lasting at least 90 days and having differing frequency of contact and
attendance requirements for program sessions. To graduate from each phase,
the defendant must complete program requirements, judicial requirements, 
urine drug testing, and education and training courses and be current on all
required court fines and fees.

o Phase I (stabilization and adjustment) includes an initial assessment of the
defendant and treatment plan, urine drug testing, and participation in an MRT
group, drug education group, and job-readiness group. Specific graduation
requirements of Phase I include the completion of drug education and
job-readiness training and step 3 of MRT.

o Phase II (recovery and issues resolution) includes MRT group participation,
a treatment plan update, a 12-step support group, progress reports, and urine
drug testing. Minimum requirements to graduate are similar to those of Phase I. 

o Phase III (sobriety maintenance) includes relapse prevention treatment,
12-step support groups, drug court appearances, urine drug testing, progress
reports, and individual counseling. Specific graduation requirements of Phase III
include attendance on all group session and court dates and completion of
relapse prevention training.

o Phase IV (application of principles) includes character development groups,
12-step support groups, individual counseling, urine drug testing, etc. Specific
graduation requirements include completion of character development or
completion of posttesting, completion of discharge summary, and completion of
graduation testimony in drug court.

o Phase V is the aftercare phase. Minimum requirements include participation
in any and all uncompleted, required counseling sessions of the drug court and
progress reports; there are no minimum drug court appearances unless for
disciplinary reasons. To graduate from Phase V, the client must attend all group
sessions as scheduled, attend all court dates, pass all urine tests, be current on
restitution (as applicable), pay the entire balance of drug court fees, and
complete the requirement checklist signed by the counselor.

Performance Measures and Evaluation Methods

In 1996, William Nichols and Travis Nelson of ND Enterprises of Oklahoma
City conducted a program evaluation to determine whether the implementation
of the planned treatment model was effective with its target population and
whether the program was meeting its objectives. In addition, information on the
following indicators was sought:

o Program impact as measured by pre- and postscales.


o Impact of sanctions, as measured by recidivism and retention.

o Use of MRT in an intervention environment as a comparative measure of
recidivism among the target population.

o Effectiveness of the drug court compared with the first year's voluntary
program implementation. (Recidivism and pre- and postmeasures would be
used as measurements of impact.)

Two areas of concern arose regarding the methodology of the evaluation. First,
there had been a lack of urine drug testing during the first 2 years of the
program. Urine drug testing data collection began in 1995, the third year of
program operation, but the evaluators opted to exclude that year because of the
lack of data from the first and second years. Second, there had been a lack of
significant data for 1993 due to incomplete data logs. The data logs were not
kept for the first 6 months of the program. In addition, until 1995, referrals
versus treatment start dates were not clearly recorded. As a result, the
evaluators had to exclude seven of the clients admitted to the program from the
evaluation.

C.B.T.I. staff developed the initial data collection system, and the data were
submitted in raw format to the evaluators. The data were compiled and
grouped into several demographic groups (age, ethnicity, and so on). For this
evaluation, only the defendants who had taken the pre- and posttests were used
in the sample. All clients who participated in treatment were included in the
recidivism study. The samples were placed in one of three categories for
analysis:

o A.T.T.A.C. Program.

o C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program.

o A.T.T.A.C. and C.B.T.I. Drug Court combined.

In the analysis of the A.T.T.A.C. Program pre- and posttests, the evaluators
used three instruments. The first instrument was the Life Purpose Questionnaire,
an instrument used to estimate the client's perceived purpose in life. The scores
ranged from 0 to 20 (higher scores show a greater perceived purpose in life),
with a normative mean of 10.8 and a standard deviation of 4.3. The second
instrument was the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, which measures the
participant's self-concept. The normative data of self-esteem is scored by
gender, ethnicity, and age (see table 1). The third instrument was the Short
Sensation-Seeking Scale, which measures hedonistic orientation and correlates
with antisocial personality. The scores range from 0 to 10, with a normative
mean of 5.12 and a standard deviation of 1.82.

The total number of participants in the A.T.T.A.C. Program from September 1,
1993, through March 1, 1995, was 88; 38 completed the program, and 50 did
not. Of the 38 who completed the program, 8 were female and 30 male. Their
ethnic makeup consisted of 32 Caucasians, 1 Hispanic, 4 Native-Americans,
and 1 African-American. The total number of participants in the C.B.T.I. Drug
Court Program from March 1, 1995, through March 1, 1996, was 110; 43
completed the program: 13 females, 30 males, 38 Caucasians, 1 Hispanic, 3
Native-Americans, and 1 African-American.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Results from the evaluators' analysis of offenders using the three instruments
described above were provided by the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program. 

Offenders in the A.T.T.A.C. Program sample (n=38) were in treatment for
191.7 days. The Life Purpose Questionnaire had a standard positive variance
of 1.06, meaning the graduates' perceptions of how they viewed their purpose
in life had improved significantly. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory had a
positive variance of 1.7, showing an increase in the graduates' self-esteem from
pre- to posttest. The Short Sensation-Seeking Scale had a standard positive
variance of 1.7, showing a decreased hedonistic orientation and an increased
ability to delay gratification.

Offenders in the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program sample (n=43) were in
treatment for 179.2 days. The Life Purpose Questionnaire had a positive
variance of 6.175, which was statistically significant. The Coopersmith
Self-Esteem Inventory had a positive variance of 2.4, showing an increase in
the self-esteem of defendants. The Short Sensation-Seeking Scale had a
positive variance of 2.2, indicating an even greater reduction in hedonistic
orientation than that found in A.T.T.A.C. participants.

Comparison of the findings regarding the A.T.T.A.C. and the C.B.T.I. Drug
Court Programs and summary results from the national level revealed the
following:

o The program completion rate was higher among C.B.T.I. Drug Court 
participants than among A.T.T.A.C. participants. 

o Dropout in treatment tended to occur earlier the C.B.T.I. Drug Court
Program than in the A.T.T.A.C. Program.

o The MRT treatment model impact evaluation showed that participants in
other, non-MRT programs had recidivism rates that were higher by at least 9
percent.

o On the national level, the Stillwater, Oklahoma, retention rates fell within the
national averages.

o Recidivism rates are high when compared with the national average of
graduate recidivism rates: 26 percent for program graduates versus the national
average of 9.5 percent.

o In examining drug court programs that have control groups, the 10-percent
completion difference falls within the norms of drug court versus control
group on the national level, according to the Office of Justice Programs Drug
Court Clearinghouse.

In addition to these evaluations, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
conducted a full criminal inquiry report on all A.T.T.A.C. and C.B.T.I.
graduates and terminations. Recidivists were defined as any client having an
arrest resulting in a conviction. Recidivists did not necessarily serve any portion
of their sentence in a county jail or state prison. In the A.T.T.A.C. Program,
offenders who were discharged from the program had a higher recidivism rate
than those who completed the program (39 percent versus 26 percent). In the
C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program, a client who was successful was four times less
likely to reoffend than a client who was unsuccessful (18 percent versus 4
percent).

These findings support the shift from the current alternative sentencing model to
a drug court model for the Stillwater community. The treatment
modality--MRT--was shown to be an effective drug court therapy, as well as
an alternative sentencing tool, by reducing hedonistic behaviors, increasing
self-esteem, and increasing life purpose in the treatment-resistant population.
These findings support the effectiveness of the judiciary's involvement in a
properly constructed treatment model for felony offenders.

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

In the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program, a client who was successful was four
times less likely to reoffend than a client who was unsuccessful (18 percent
versus 4 percent).

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

References

Bazemore, G., and D. Malony. "Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward
Restorative Justice Sanctions in a Balanced Justice System." Federal Probation
58(1): 24-35, 1994.

Latessa, E.J., and G.F. Vita. "Effects of Intensive Supervision on Shock
Probationers." Journal of Criminal Justice 16(4): 319-330, 1988.

Umbriet, M.S., "Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward
Restorative Justice." Federal Probation 53(3): 52-57, 1989.

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

Part Two: Multijuridictional Task Force Evaluation

Multijurisdictional Task Forces: Synthesis of State and Local Evaluation
Findings

Multijurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) have become vital elements in the
national effort to reduce the availability and use of illegal drugs and to reduce
levels of violent crime. Because most law enforcement authority is limited to
specific jurisdictions, but criminal activity is not, it is possible for large criminal
enterprises to commit crimes beyond the scope of power of a particular law
enforcement agency. Dealing with this problem requires cooperation among
numerous law enforcement agencies. 

BJA's grant programs promote the development of MJTFs that combine the
talents of a variety of organizations and eliminate procedural barriers that
prevent criminal justice system efforts from crossing jurisdictional lines.
Specifically, BJA guidelines recommend that task forces combine and
coordinate the capabilities of otherwise disparate elements of the criminal
justice system, such as law enforcement, prosecution, and the courts. 

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

BJA's grant programs promote the development of MJTFs that combine the
talents of a variety of organizations and eliminate procedural barriers that
prevent criminal justice system efforts from crossing jurisdictional lines.

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


Through previously conducted assessments, evaluations, and surveys, BJA has
learned the following about task forces:

o Task force organizations have been set up quickly to respond to the need
for reactive apprehension by law enforcement. Increased use of planning has
become the mode of operation for most task forces. Emphasis has expanded
from limited apprehension activities to all elements and support needed for
successful prosecution.

o Formerly, information and intelligence gathering systems were almost
nonexistent or, at best, weak and fragmented. Establishment of intelligence
systems is a major result of federal funding of MJTFs. It is unlikely that this
could have been achieved by individual agencies. Now, jurisdictions involved in
many MJTFs have access to vastly improved information resources.

o Little, if any, consideration was initially given to the impact task force arrests
have on other components of the criminal justice system. Participation on task
forces and direct coordination of MJTFs with probation, prosecution, courts,
and community groups have evolved over time. Today many task forces are
managed by prosecutors.

o Guidelines for MJTF development, implementation, and evaluation were
initially not available. As a result of efforts by BJA, the National Institute of
Justice, and others, the steps necessary to establish MJTFs, as well as the
critical elements to ensure successful implementation, are widely accepted and
have become the basis for guidance, training, and technical assistance.

o Federal participation was initially limited and involved primarily the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As the popularity of MJTFs grew in
the fight against drugs and violent crime, the number and types of federal
agencies directly involved have likewise grown. 

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

This summary on state and local evaluations of multijurisdictional task forces is
a product of a cooperative effort by the states, the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, and BJA-funded task forces, as part of the State Evaluation
Development Program that is coordinated by the Justice Research and
Statistics Association.

It is the final synthesis by BJA in response to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Robert A Kirchner, BJA's Chief of Evaluation and Analysis, is the principal
author and was assisted by Jill Kateman, formerly of the Evaluation and
Analysis Branch. Invaluable contributions to the report were also made by Dr.
Donald Rebovich and Dr. James Coldren, Jr., with assistance from the
following JRSA staff: Kellie J. Dressler, Deputy Director, who supervised
compiling and editorial efforts; Terrylynn Coffin, Program Assistance; Tara
O'Connor, Program Assistant; and Nancy Michel, Editor/Writer.

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

The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Program has provided substantial resources to state and local law enforcement
and prosecutorial agencies. Under the Byrne Formula Grant Program, states
have allocated a significant portion of their funds to MJTFs, substantially
affecting the development and maintenance of such task forces. In 1995, BJA
created the MJTF Working Group. Participants include MJTF commanders,
Byrne State Planning Agency program managers and evaluators, and BJA and
NIJ staff. The purpose of the group is to discuss how federal, state, and local
partnerships can assist in future initiatives to enhance the role of MJTFs, while
improving their effectiveness and reinforcing accountability. 

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

The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Program has provided substantial resources to state and local law enforcement
and prosecutorial agencies. Under the Byrne Formula Grant Program, states
have allocated a significant portion of their funds to MJTFs, substantially
affecting the development and maintenance of such task forces.

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

On October 24, 1995, BJA mailed a survey to formula grant-funded MJTFs in
29 states. The survey results provided comprehensive information on task force
organization and operations, including the amount of task force expenditures
per budget category (including overtime), information about whether federal
agencies participate in or coordinate with specific task forces, and data on a
number of other programmatic issues and concerns. A parallel analysis of
MJTFs funded under the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program was conducted in
FY 1994. In addition, BJA has synthesized the results from the RAND reports
that make up the National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program,
including information about the funding, importance, and impact of MJTFs.

BJA's Multijurisdictional Task Force Working Group came to a consensus and
produced the following definition of an MJTF:

Cooperative law enforcement efforts involving two or more criminal justice 
agencies, with jurisdiction over two or more areas, sharing the common goal of
impacting one or more aspects of drug control and violent crime problems.

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

Multijurisdictional Evaluation Findings

Determining the Effectiveness of Multijurisdictional Task Forces

State Planning Agencies assess and review task force performance quarterly
and annually, resulting in revisions to the states' Byrne Formula Grant Program
strategies. BJA encourages the adoption of a continual self-evaluation process
in the management of MJTFs, including those funded under the Byrne
Discretionary Grant Program. This practice is designed to ensure the
establishment of goals, objectives, and performance measures. A central
purpose of the evaluation function is accountability and feedback to improve
operations, as well as reporting requirements.

Although self-evaluation has proved its worth to individual MJTFs, its most
important result has been to provide lessons learned and information about
critical components or elements that are essential for MJTF success and/or
maintenance. The following section summarizes the most often cited critical
elements. They are based on the findings compiled by BJA from project 
assessments and the many national evaluations reviewed.

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

The Bureau of Justice Assistance compiled and reviewed all existing assessment
and evaluation reports from BJA's Discretionary Grant and Formula Grant
Programs. This systematic search resulted in the identification of 12 critical
elements that lead to the accomplishment of both programmatic and
organizational objectives of MJTFs.

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

Consensus on Critical Elements of Success for Multijurisdictional Task Forces

The Bureau of Justice Assistance compiled and reviewed all existing assessment
and evaluation reports from BJA's Discretionary Grant and Formula Grant
Programs. This systematic search resulted in the identification of 12 critical
elements that lead to the accomplishment of both programmatic and
organizational objectives of MJTFs. The reports presented discussions on both
the establishment and implementation of MJTFs. BJA's review identified an
emerging consensus about what program elements and activities are essential to
maintain (1) successful management and performance and (2) institutionalization
and future sustainability. The 12 critical elements of MJTFs presented below
have been confirmed by a number of task forces as "what works."

Critical Element 1: Written interagency agreements adhered to by all
participating agencies establish broad objectives and funding methods for the
task force. Well-thought-out written agreements can minimize future questions
about activities and responsibilities and serve as a strong statement of the task
force's intention to set aside turf issues and work as a unit for the benefit of all
agencies. A supportive feature of many successful task forces is the
establishment of an advisory board or group to guide decisionmaking and
oversight processes. This "board of directors" can play a number of critical
roles, including policy development, support for long-term funding, and
coordination with external officials and other agencies.

Critical Element 2: Prosecutor involvement, either as the "lead agency" or as a
direct member and participant on a task force, is common and has improved a
task force's ability to process cases and evidence, planning and tactics used in
pursuing cases, and law enforcement linkages to other components of the
criminal justice system.

Critical Element 3: Computerized information/intelligence databases and
systems of the agencies involved in task forces have become increasingly
sophisticated. The development and maintenance of intelligence networks have
become key components in the task force maturation process and have resulted
in establishing capabilities in the individual participating agencies that few could
have managed on their own. Enhanced investigative capabilities have led to
expansion of task force objectives and activities to include financial
investigations and surveillance of racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations
(RICOs). These networks often result in agencies avoiding duplication of
investigative efforts.

Critical Element 4: Target decision, case planning and selection, and enhanced
investigation tactics are now based on clear, specific criteria that focus the
procedures used by task forces members. Initially task force participants agree
upon and describe offenses and offenders for priority apprehension. All
participants work together as a team when deciding on tactics to be used, both
investigative and prosecutorial. This also leads to enhanced ability to coordinate
the efforts of task force agencies with other agencies.

Critical Element 5: Communication among task force participants and their
sponsoring agencies, other responsible officials, and other components of the
criminal justice system is critical to the sustenance of the task force. Task forces
should never become isolated or outside the reach and direction of their home
agencies. Continually open channels for communication are critical to MJTF
acceptance and support externally and meeting objectives internally. Many
states are using the framework of statewide cluster meetings for all task forces
to share information on improvements and modifications that produce more
effective results. Frequent, regular meetings help keep task force officers
focused on overall direction and program goals and objectives. By building
relationships among agencies, the meetings minimize organizational problems.
They also promote improvements through feedback to the group and reinforce
the roles of various participants. Occurring weekly or more frequently, these
meetings provide a venue in which to review current cases, planned arrests or
surveillance projects, or other developments. An unanticipated result of
communication concerning task force activities is better overall communication
among agencies.

Critical Element 6: Coordination of task force activities often determines the
long-term acceptance and, hence, viability, of the task force. Many studies have
produced innovative means to promote coordination given the objectives and
activities involved. Larger, urban task forces are more complex and must put in
place multiple forms of coordination. Specialized task forces (gangs, border
crimes, rural) often rely on coordination to gain resources critical to the success
of their operations on an as-needed basis. Many task forces now hold
meetings, at least on a monthly basis, with all local, state, and federal entities
operating within their jurisdiction.

Critical Element 7: Establishing the basis for a task force's budget is the central
feature of interagency agreement and is predicated on a consensus to support
the cost of operations across the jurisdictions involved, including any federal
funding that may be included. Reliable, long-term funding sources are crucial to
a task force and, if found, often indicate that a task force has institutionalized
itself. Funding must match the complex needs most task force operations have if
they are to meet their objectives. The availability of advanced technology and
computerized systems has created ever-increasing pressures to find funding to
support more than the salaries and benefits of task force participants. Training,
the need for external expertise, and the use of overtime during periods of
surveillance require additional resources. Long-term funding allocations would
alleviate many funding issues, but too often task forces exist on a year-to-year
basis.

Critical Element 8: Clearly formulated goals, objectives, and performance
measures are often a challenge to develop in the creation of a task force but are
critical to success in the future. When task forces achieve their goals, they gain
specificity about what is to be accomplished, with objectives that are both
measurable and observable. Numerous examples of task force objectives and
performance measures exist, making this exercise much less difficult and
creating opportunities for comparing results across task forces. At the time task
forces apply for continuing funding from outside or within their jurisdictions, the
results of assessments and evaluations become critical and often determine if
they will receive support. 

Critical Element 9: Monitoring and evaluation should be constant throughout the
implementation of a task force and throughout its lifetime as these assessment
tools are key to revising task force goals, targets, procedures, and related
activities. Strong management practices, including evaluation, lead to the
long-term institutionalization of task forces within their environment. This, in
turn, often leads to changes in their objectives and adaption of tactics but does
not undercut their ability to serve unique and essential functions.

Critical Element 10: Staffing and recruitment begins with the recognized need
for experienced leadership and supervision. Supervisors often seek seasoned
officers to work for them but often recruit younger, less experienced officers or
even prosecutors who need training. Most task forces set limits on the length of
time individuals, including supervisors, can participate in a specific task force.
Individual agencies often profit greatly when task force members return to their
home agencies to use their new skills. Numerous task forces depend on
part-time members, working when needed for special duties or on overtime
from their regular positions. The flexibility required when faced with limited
resources explains both the success and fragile nature of some task force
configurations. 

Critical Element 11: Effective asset seizure and forfeiture activities are not
critical for all task forces because of the differences in constraints and
applicability in individual jurisdictions. In general, however, offenders' forfeiture
of assets seized in drug arrests benefit task forces both as a practical
enforcement tactic and as a means of ensuring financial viability of the task
force. 

Critical Element 12: Technical assistance and training programs that draw on
the experiences of current and former task force participants are critical to the
maintenance and continuity of task force operations. Federal sources often
provide funds for personnel training. Such training may be replaced in the future
with existing guidelines and manuals and successful train-the-trainer programs
that provide cost-effective opportunities for training at local levels. The success
of many task forces relies on supervisory experience and sufficient expertise to
accomplish objectives. However, effective training programs are critical to
ensuring that personnel at all levels will be able to contribute to the success of
the task force.

Multijurisdictional Task Forces Then and Now: 1986-1997

In 1995 BJA initiated its most recent in a series of analyses of formula-funded
programs, which included an analysis of more than 34 percent of all
Byrne-funded task forces. BJA's Discretionary Grants Program Division
(DGPD) conducted a parallel analysis of discretionary-funded multijurisdictional
task forces in FY 1994. The findings and conclusions added to current
understanding of MJTFs, while complementing previous studies and
evaluations.

Task forces vary in size, number of assigned personnel, and diversity of
agencies involved. Hence, task force operations can be very complex. Analysis
of the formula-funded task forces revealed the following: 70 percent ranged in
size from 1 to 10 members; 20 percent ranged in size from 11 to 22 members;
and the remaining 10 percent ranged in size from 23 members to Connecticut's
statewide task force of 355 members. During FY 1994, the total amount of
BJA formula funds going to task forces in the study was $45.504 million, or just
over 17 percent of the total formula budget. The vast majority of task forces
are small, comprising 10 or fewer staff members. These small organizations are
likely to be more dependent (sometimes totally) on federal funding than larger
task forces.

Task forces have enabled agencies to dedicate personnel full-time to such
activities as drug enforcement, gang abatement, and major financial
investigations. The use of such dedicated personnel permits task forces to
increase the size of caseloads and obtain better equipment. Undercover
operations are improved by the facilitated exchange of undercover officers
among agencies. Task forces generally adopt a problem-solving approach that
includes targeting and apprehending higher level criminals, deterring distributors
from entering markets, and making movement across jurisdictional boundaries
more difficult.

Analysis of task force budgets revealed that personnel costs (wages and
benefits) accounted for 63.4 percent of the total amount of a task force's
budget. Other budget item costs included: confidential funds (7.2 percent),
overtime (2 percent), equipment and supplies (1.85 percent), and travel (0.5
percent). The final category combined all other expenses, including training,
office space, outside contractors, and other costs (25.05 percent). The MJTF
Working Group noted that in most cases, task forces also receive in-kind
contributions, such as materials, equipment, and other support. These
contributions are not represented in their budgets but nevertheless are critical to
the operation of task forces. Although some of this support comes from state
and federal agencies, most comes from community associations and groups.

Almost 65 percent of the formula-funded task forces stated they would shut
down if Byrne funding were discontinued. Additionally, many of the remaining
task forces reported that they would continue to operate but with diminished
capability. The dependence on federal dollars is not limited to newly formed
task forces; nearly half of the task forces that were in existence before receiving
federal funding reported that their operations would shut down if federal funding
were discontinued.

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

Almost 65 percent of the formula-funded task forces stated that they would
shut down if Byrne funding were discontinued. Additionally, many of the
remaining task forces reported that they would continue to operate but with
diminished capability.

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

These findings may be explained by the local use of federal funding to keep a
task force operating. In terms of participation and coordination, federal funding
supports cooperative agreements across jurisdictional boundaries in a horizontal
task force organization by forming partnerships across contiguous jurisdictions.
Federal funds also provide a means for supporting local, county, state, and
federal participation. Finally, these funds are directed specifically at providing
means for linking law enforcement with other agencies or organizations, both
public and private. Conversely, MJTFs enable federal agencies to operate
more efficiently in certain settings, such as rural jurisdictions. 

According to BJA's telephone followup to the survey, as well as other MJTF
evaluations, the following would likely occur with the withdrawal of federal
funds:

o Services critical to task force objectives would no longer be available, (e.g.,
a financial investigator working across jurisdictions or a hot-spot mapping
system shared by all).

o Existing innovative surveillance/investigative methods would be disrupted,
undermining task force strategies.

o Undercover operations would be difficult without "on-loan" personnel from
other jurisdictions.

o Readily accessible legal expertise, especially from prosecutor's offices,
would be discontinued, leading to a decrease in the quality of casework.

o The "cross-designation" capability would likely disappear, diminishing the
ability of local and federal authorities to seek increased penalties and
prosecutorial options.

o The ability to pool the resources of individual agencies that make unique
contributions to a task force would decrease as agencies withdrew their
support.

Federal funding is an important "seed" in initiating MJTFs and in generating
specific innovative activities. Federal funds are also critical to the sustenance of
task force operations. If federal dollars were to disappear, some task forces
could become financially self-sufficient, but the large majority could not.

MJTFs changed the enforcement model that instructed an individual agency to
be responsible for task force resources by requiring that the resources of a
number of agencies be strategically pooled. This permitted medium-size and
small rural departments, as well as part-time prosecutors, to receive the benefits
of specialized enforcement. Generally, MJTFs have led to improved
cooperation among agencies, enabling the agencies to work as a single unit
across jurisdictional boundaries. Smaller departments have been able to engage
in undercover activities that they could not perform solely with their own
resources. 

Municipal agencies were participants in 88 percent of the task forces surveyed,
making them the most common agency type funded through the Byrne Formula
Grant Program, followed closely by county agencies (83 percent). Clearly, a
major result of MJTF funding has been increased direct assistance to local
agencies, which is a primary goal of the legislation (Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3711, et seq.).

State law enforcement agencies and state prosecutors have increased their roles
and activities in support of MJTFs over time. Task force members interviewed
reported that whether state agencies provide direct personnel support or
specialized assistance, or play lead roles on task forces, many new and lasting
relationships have been forged between state and local jurisdictions and
agencies.

BJA encourages the establishment of a formal structure for coordination to
assist in the management and direction of MJTFs. BJA also recommends the
inclusion of members of federal agencies on the coordinating bodies as well as
their direct participation on state and local MJTFs. BJA's guidelines specifically
identify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the DEA, as well as
other federal agencies and offices, such as the U.S. Attorney's Office, United
States Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF),
and the U.S. Department of Defense.

In some instances, intelligence and information sharing may be preferable to full
participation in MJTF, because state and local task forces typically have
different objectives than federal task forces. A major conclusion of the
evaluations is that state and local MJTFs perform a complementary function to
federal activities, especially in rural areas.

Federal law enforcement agencies serve as members on 24 percent of
Byrne-funded task forces, and 8 percent include a federal prosecutor. Federal
participation also occurs when a task force with no federal members conducts
joint investigations and operations with one or more federal agencies that may
provide equipment and/or share intelligence. The survey revealed that, of all
federal agencies participating, the DEA is the agency most involved with task
forces (34 percent). This was to be expected since the primary objectives of
Byrne MJTFs are to address drug-abuse and control problems. Almost a
quarter of the task forces included ATF, a somewhat higher level than expected
by the Working Group. Although the level of participation with the FBI is
approximately what the Working Group expected (18 percent), the level of
involvement by the U.S. Attorney's Office was higher than expected (almost 20
percent).

Task forces and federal agencies may communicate and cooperate regularly,
even though they do not conduct operations jointly. This type of coordination
remains high across the major federal agencies. The DEA (71 percent) is
reported as being most involved with these task forces, followed by the FBI
(54 percent), ATF (53 percent), and the U.S. Attorney's Office (53 percent).

These and other findings are the result of MJTF analyses and evaluations and
have helped identify common characteristics and experiences of MJTFs. As
with most programs and organizations that support them, MJTFs continually
evolve from their initial implementation into mature programs. Table 2 presents
a summary of improvements and changes in MJTFs reported and analyzed
between 1986 and 1997.

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


If task forces are to be successfully sustained, they must be able to integrate
themselves into the existing criminal justice system and adapt to changes in their
environment. Federal leadership should emphasize documenting, evaluating, and
disseminating information to assist MJTFs.

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

Future Directions

State and local agencies, with assistance from BJA, are committed to
conducting more analytical work on task force structures, the roles of task
force participants, and the long-term impact of task force activities on law
enforcement and local jurisdictions. Future process and impact evaluations will
also include non-law enforcement issues, since many MJTFs target
communitywide problems. Improved quantitative and qualitative measures of
performance and impact have opened the door for more longitudinal research
and analysis. Completing this summary is a comprehensive reference section
highlighting national, state, and local research and evaluation efforts to date.

This synthesis identifies the need for fine-tuning policies, leadership intervention,
and/or procedures to direct future MJTF implementation by state and local
agencies. If task forces are to be successfully sustained, they must be able to
integrate themselves into the existing criminal justice system and adapt to
changes in their environment. Federal leadership should emphasize
documenting, evaluating, and disseminating information to assist MJTFs.

References

American Prosecutors Research Institute. The Local Prosecutor and
Multijurisdictional Narcotics Task Forces: Their Development, Implementation
and Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, 1992.

Birkbeck, Christopher, Michelle Hussong, Gary Lafree, and Nora Wilson. An
Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces. Albuquerque, NM: New
Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 1995.

Brockway, Al. Eight-Year Statistical Report of Montana Multi-Jurisdictional
Task Forces. Helena, MT: Montana Board of Crime Control, 1995.

Brockway, Al, and Fred Fisher. An Evaluation of the Effects of MBCC's Task
Force Policies and Procedures on Local Task Force Operations. Helena, MT:
Montana Board of Crime Control, 1995.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. A Report to the Attorney General: Bureau of
Justice Assistance Support for Multijurisdictional Task Forces FY 1989-1994.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
1995.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Audit Report: The Drug Enforcement
Administration's and the Bureau of Justice Assistance's State and Local Task
Force Efforts. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, Audit
Division, 1994.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Drug Control Task Forces: A
Five Year Review 1988-1992: A Report of the State Reporting and Evaluation
Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Task
Forces: Lessons Learned from the OCN Program Model. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Narcotics-Related Financial Investigations:
Lessons Learned from the Finvest Program Model. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Law Enforcement Task Force Evaluation
Projects: Results and Findings in the States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1992.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Task
Forces: Lessons Learned from OCN Program Model. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1992.--

Burns, Dawn. Evaluation of Drug Forces in Idaho. Meridian, ID: Idaho
Department of Law Enforcement, 1990.

Chaiken, Jan, Marcia Chaiken, and Clifford Karchmer. Multijurisdictional Drug
Law Enforcement Strategies: Reducing Supply and Demand. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates, 1990.

Coldren, James R., Jr. Drug Control Task Forces: Creating and Implementing a
Multijurisdictional Unit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1993.


Coldren, James R., Jr., and Melissa A. Ruboy. Focus on What Works: Law
Enforcement Task Force Evaluation Projects Results and Findings in the States.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
1992.

Coldren, James R., Jr., Edmund F. McGarrell, Michael Sabath, Kip Schlegel,
and Lisa A. Stolzenberg. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force Operations:
Results of a Nationwide Survey of Task Force Commanders. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Coldren, James R., Jr., et al. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force Operations:
Results of a Nationwide Survey of Task Force Commanders. Washington, DC:
Justice Research and Statistics Association, 1993.

Dewey, Jennifer. Combining Qualitative Data in an Evaluation of
Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Enforcement Units. Carbondale, IL: Center for the
Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, 1995.

Dizon, Jesus. Washington State Patrol Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Narcotics
Task Force Participation and Support Program. Olympia, WA: Washington
State Community, Trade and Economic Development, 1996.

Doyle, John, and M. Steven Meagher. Asset Seizures and Forfeitures, 1990
through 1994: An Examination of Task Forces Funded Through the Indiana
Criminal Justice Institute. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute,
1994.

Draper, Gene. Arrests and Disposition of Persons Arrested by the Texas
Anti-Drug Abuse Task Forces. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council,
1990.

Dunworth, Terence, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger. National Assessment
of the Byrne Formula Grant Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Dunworth, Terence, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger. State and Local
Responses to the Byrne Formula Grant Program: A Seven State Study.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1995.

Farabaugh, Donald. Evaluation of Drug Task Forces in Maryland. Towson,
MD: Maryland Office of Justice Assistance, 1990.


Gilsinan, James F., and Mary Domahidy. Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement
Task Forces in Missouri: What Works and Doesn't Work. St. Louis, MO:
Department of Public Policy Studies, St. Louis University, 1991.

Gray-Ray, Phyllis, Anitta Bledsoe, Gregory Dunaway, Terri Earnest, Robert
Frese, Christopher Hensley, and Melvin Ray. An Impact Analysis of
Mississippi's Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces on Drug-Related Crime and
Violence: Year Five. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Crime and Justice
Research Unit, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University,
1996.

Holmes, William M., and Elizabeth Dillion. Joint State/City Task Force on
Drugs and Violence: Analysis of a Multi-Level Task Force. Boston, MA:
Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1991.

Holmes, William M., and Teresa Mayors. The Analysis of Intervention Impacts
and Change in Crime: A Task Force Analytical Exemplar. Boston, MA:
Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1990.

Jackson, Robert A. An Evaluation of the Oregon National Guard's
Participation in Statewide Drug Law Enforcement. Salem, OR: Oregon
Criminal Justice Services Division, 1990.

Jones, David. Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces: A Policy Impact
Assessment --for the Governor's Crime Commission. Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center, 1994.

Justice Research and Statistics Association. Multijurisdictional Drug
Enforcement Task Forces: Accomplishments Under the State and Local
Formula Grant Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Assistance, 1992.

Kennedy, E. Drug Law Enforcement. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, 1995.

Leonardson, Gary R. Evaluation of Drug Task Forces in South Dakota. Pierre,
SD: South Dakota Attorney General's Task Force on Drugs, 1990.

Lewis, Ray. 1994 Narcotic Task Force Data Book. St. Paul, MN: Criminal
Justice Center for the Minnesota Office of Drug Policy and Violence
Prevention, 1994.

Mande, Mary J., and Suzanne Pullen. Colorado Multi-Jurisdictional Task
Forces: A Multi-Theoretical Approach to Evaluation. Denver, CO: Colorado
Division of Criminal Justice, 1990.

Mayors, Teresa, Pamela Lemoine, and Elizabeth Dillion. Program
Implementation: First Year of the 1986 State and Local Narcotics Control
Assistance. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1990.

McGarrell, Edmund, and Kip Schlegel. An Evaluation of the South Central
Indiana and Tri-County Narcotics Task Forces. Indianapolis, IN: Center for
Criminal Justice Research and Information, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute,
1990.

Moran, Patrick. Washington State Patrol Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Enforcement
Task Force Participation Program: An Evaluation. Olympia, WA: Washington
State Department of Community Development, 1993.

Overton, Michael, and Michele B. Evans. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces
in Nebraska: The Implementation and Activities of Federally Funded Projects.
Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,
1991.

Overton, Michael, and Michele B. Evans. A Statistical Overview of
Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska
Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1991.

Paciocco, Robert J. An Evaluation: Narcotics Task Forces in North Carolina. 
Washington, NC: Mid-East Commission, 1991.

Rebovich, Donald. Approaching a Model for Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics
Task Forces: An Examination of Characteristics Associated With Local Drug
Enforcement Implementation Effectiveness. Alexandria, VA: American
Prosecutors Research Institute, 1994.

Rebovich, Donald, Christine Harttraft, John Krimmel, and Pamela Shram.
Examining Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Forces: An Evaluation of New
Jersey Projects Funded Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988.
Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, 1990.

Sabath, Michael J., John P. Doyle, and John W. Ransburg. Multijurisdictional
Drug Task Forces in Indiana: The First Two Years of Operations. Indianapolis,
IN: Center for Criminal Justice Research and Information, Indiana Criminal
Justice Institute, 1990.


Sabath, Michael J., John P. Doyle, and John W. Ransburg. Multijurisdictional
Drug Task Forces: An Enforcement Approach to Drugs in Indiana.
Indianapolis, IN: Center for Criminal Justice and Information, Indiana Criminal
Justice Institute, 1989.

San Diego Association of Governments. Assessment of a Multi-Agency
Approach to Drug Involved Gang Members. San Diego, CA: San Diego
Association of Governments, Criminal Research Division, 1996.

Silva, Roberta K., and Steve Peters. Multijurisdictional Task Forces in Idaho.
Meridian, ID: Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, 1990.

Storkamp, Daniel, and Michelle Powell. Minnesota 1990 Narcotic Task Force
Survey. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center,
1991.

Wiggins, Dennis. Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement Task Forces: A
Description and Implementation Guide. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Division of
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 1991.

Witt, Judith, Gloria Brown, and Lee Bushweiler. Wisconsin Drug Law
Enforcement Task Forces. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Office of Justice
Assistance Statistical Analysis Center, 1996.

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

Appendix A

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

The Bureau of Justice Assistance 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
effective programs through U.S. Department of Justice networks directly to
practitioners. Dissemination approval for effective programs is based on peer
review conducted by the Program Effectiveness Review Panel. This
independent panel is rigorous in its recommendations to the BJA Director of the
panel. In the development of the guidelines, BJA relied heavily on the panel and
on past activities of the National Institute of Justice to identify exemplary, model
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 is disseminated to the field in a credible and timely fashion. The
effective programs monographs from this initiative communicate the results from
the 56 laboratories (50 states and 6 territories) put in place under the Byrne
Formula Grant Program.

The following guidelines and criteria, to be used for submitting information
about potential programs, are also used by the Program Effectiveness Review
Panel in its review of nominated programs. The panel reviews the programs and
submits its recommendations to the BJA Director of the panel. Once effective
programs have been approved by the BJA Director, BJA monographs
describing these programs are published.

I. Abstract

To be considered by the panel, the appropriate state agency must submit an
abstract about the program. The abstract should be a concise, 1-page
statement (200-300 words) of concrete, observable program outcomes
delineating the following aspects of the program: goals, purposes and needs
addressed, method of operation, audience, and expected result(s).

II. Basic Information

Basic Iinformation should be approximately one page.

A. Project Title, Applicant Agency, 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, Mission of Applicant Agency

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

C. Project Dates

Provide date(s) developed, date(s) operated, and date(s) evaluated.

D. Source(s) and Level(s) of Development 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, 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's goals. Include only
those goals that relate directly to claims of effectiveness. In the case of
evaluation models designed to meet intermediate objectives, link the objectives
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(s). 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
program 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: scope (Does the project supplement or replace an
existing program, or is it a component of a larger program?), staff activities and
staffing patterns, staff development activities, management activities, and
monitoring and evaluation procedures.

G. Significance of Program Design Compared With Designs 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

In two to three pages, describe the potential for replicating the program.

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 replication at 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 replicating the project. Discuss costs for personnel, special equipment, and
materials and supplies that are necessary for installing and/or maintaining the
program at an adopting site. Costs associated with the development of the
original program should be excluded from this discussion.

V. Evidence of Program Success

Provide evidence of the program's success in approximately six to eight pages.

A. Impact Statement(s)

The impact statement should include: the target group for which results are
available, the nature of the change effected by the program, the process and
evaluation methods used for measuring the impact of the program, and the
standards used to determine 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 reflected in the impact statement and supported by
convincing evidence will be approved).

B. Description of Methodology

1. Design

An evaluation design usually addresses three factors: the timing of data
collection (e.g., pretests and posttests or different points in a time series), the
groups involved (e.g., a group receiving the program and a comparison group
receiving an alternative program), and 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: Who
participated in the study? How was the sample selected? How many
participants were included in the final sample? How representative is the sample
of the target population and program participants as a whole?

3. Instruments and Procedures

This section should describe the evaluation instruments and/or procedures and
how each assessment technique relates to program 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 should also be explained.

4. Data Collection

Describe the procedures used to select and train reliability testers and the actual
strategies used to ensure quality control during data collection. Indicate the
periods of data collection, the persons responsible for supervising 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
separately. 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 the program's 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--that is, 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 the importance of the results obtained: How do these results show
that the needs for which the project was designed were met? Establish the
importance of the needs, and demonstrate that the results are broad enough and
powerful enough to be viewed as significant.

2. Comparison of Results With Results From Other Program Results

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

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

Sources for Further Information

For more information on the State Evaluation Development Program, contact:


Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-6278
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-677- or 202-307-1480

Resources on evaluating criminal justice programs may also be obtained by
visiting the BJA Evaluation Web site:

www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org

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

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), share 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:


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

o Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

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

o Fax
301-519-5212

o Fax on Demand
1-800-688-4252

o BJA Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

o NCJRS World Wide Web
www.ncjrs.org

o E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

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