United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Committee on the

Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the

Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives

July 1997 DRUG COURTS

Overview of Growth,

Characteristics, and

Results

GAO/GGD-97-106

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-275268 

July 31, 1997

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which authorizes the

award of federal grants for drug court programs, requires that we assess the effectiveness and

impact of these grants and report to Congress. To assist Congress in its deliberations on

whether to fund drug court programs, we provided a preliminary report in May 1995.1

 In

response to the legislative mandate and discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary

Committees, this report discusses (1) the universe of and funding for drug courts; (2) their

approaches, characteristics, and completion and retention rates; (3) the extent to which

program and participant data are maintained and used to manage and evaluate drug courts; and

(4) the results of our review and synthesis of existing published and unpublished evaluations or

assessments of drug court programs regarding the impact of such programs. This report

contains recommendations to the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services,

and the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute to help ensure that, to the extent

feasible, follow-up data on program participants are collected by drug court programs and

considered in future impact evaluations.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other

appropriate congressional committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services, the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute, the Director of the Office

of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to

others upon request.

1

Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to Address Drug-Related Crime (GAO/GGD-95-159BR, May 22, 1995).
B-275268 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix X. If you or your staff have any

questions regarding this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration of

 Justice Issues

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
B-275268 

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

Purpose Since the 1980s, the drug epidemic in the United States and the adoption

of tougher drug policies by lawmakers and officials have contributed to an

overload of drug cases on judicial dockets. In response to the deluge of

drug cases and the cycle of criminal recidivism1

 common among drug

offenders, some state and local jurisdictions began in the late 1980s

creating drug courts. These are special judicial proceedings generally used

for nonviolent drug offenders that feature supervised treatment and

periodic drug testing.

Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(P.L. 103-322) (hereafter referred to as the Violent Crime Act) specifically

authorizes the award of federal grants for drug court programs that

include court-supervised drug treatment.2

 The act requires that GAO assess

the effectiveness and impact of these grants and report to Congress. In

response to this requirement and on the basis of discussions with the

Senate and House Judiciary Committees, GAO focused its work on

determining (1) the universe of and funding for drug court programs;

(2) the approaches, characteristics, and completion and retention rates of

existing programs; and (3) the extent to which program and participant

data are maintained and used to manage and evaluate drug court

programs.

GAO also focused on determining what conclusions can be drawn from

existing published and available unpublished evaluations or assessments

of drug court programs on the impact of such programs, particularly as

they relate to the following specific issues raised in Title V of the 1994

Violent Crime Act and in GAO’s discussions with Senate and House

Judiciary Committees: (1) criminal profile of program participants

compared to similar offenders processed through the traditional

adjudication system, (2) completion rates of participants, (3) differences

in characteristics between program graduates and dropouts, (4) sanctions

imposed on persons who failed to complete drug court programs or

comply with program requirements, (5) drug use and criminal recidivism

rates of program and nonprogram participants, and (6) costs and benefits

of drug court programs to the criminal justice system.

1

GAO uses the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of committing new criminal offenses after

having been arrested and/or convicted of a crime.

2

Under this act, the Attorney General in administering the federal drug court grant program is required

to consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is responsible for providing grants to

public and private entities that provide substance abuse treatment for individuals under criminal

justice supervision.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

In 1995, GAO issued an initial report3 on drug court programs, which

provided preliminary information on programs operating at that time.

Background The main purpose of drug court programs is to use the authority of the

court to reduce crime by changing defendants’ drug-using behavior. Under

this concept, in exchange for the possibility of dismissed charges or

reduced sentences, defendants are diverted to drug court programs in

various ways and at various stages of the judicial process depending on

the circumstances. Judges preside over drug court proceedings; monitor

the progress of defendants through frequent status hearings; and prescribe

sanctions and rewards as appropriate in collaboration with prosecutors,

defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others. Although there are

basic elements common to many drug court programs, the programs vary

in terms of approaches used, participant eligibility and program

requirements, type of treatment provided, sanctions and rewards, and

other practices.

With the assistance of the Drug Court Clearinghouse,4 GAO identified

existing drug court programs. GAO, among other things, then surveyed and

obtained responses from 134 of the 140 drug court programs that were

identified as operating as of December 31, 1996. GAO also did an evaluation

synthesis of 20 studies5

 that included some relevant information on the

impact of specific drug court programs and identified a variety of other

documents that described program objectives and operations; provided

judicial commentary on these programs; and, in some cases, provided a

summary description of a number of programs.

Results in Brief There has been a substantial increase in the number of drug court

programs started in the United States and the availability of federal

funding to support such programs. Between 1989 and 1994, 42 drug court

3

Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to Address Drug-Related Crime, GAO/GGD-95-159BR,

May 22, 1995.

4

The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at the American University, which is

funded by the Department of Justice’s Drug Court Program Office, among other things, compiles,

publishes, and disseminates information and materials on drug courts and provides technical

assistance to jurisdictions involved with planning and implementing drug court programs.

5

GAO’s literary search and data collection efforts identified over 80 documents available as of

March 31, 1997, that were either published or unpublished evaluation studies; described program

objectives and operations; provided judicial commentary; and, in some cases, provided a summary

description of a number of programs. Only 20 of these documents met the criteria for inclusion in

GAO’s evaluation synthesis, including providing some information on the impact and/or effectiveness

of drug court programs.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

programs were started.6 Since 1994, the total number of operating drug

court programs had grown to 161 as of March 31, 1997. The number of

drug court programs in various developmental stages as of the same date

indicates that the number of operating programs will likely continue to

grow.

Over $125 million has been made available for the planning,

implementation, enhancement, and/or evaluation studies of drug court

programs from a variety of funding sources since 1989. Federal funding,

which has increased substantially since 1993, has provided over

$80 million of the total. Over 95 percent of the federal funding has been

provided through federal grants administered by the Department of Justice

and the Department of Health and Human Services. State and local

governments, private donations, and fees collected from program

participants have provided about $45 million.

The drug court programs GAO surveyed were very diverse in approach,

characteristics, and completion and retention rates.7

 Some programs

reported that they deferred prosecuting offenders who entered the

program, some allowed offenders to enter the program after their case had

been adjudicated, and others allowed offenders to enter their program on

a trial basis after entering a plea. Although all of the programs GAO

surveyed reported having a treatment component as a part of their overall

program, results from a Drug Court Clearinghouse survey indicated that

the type and extent of treatment provided to program participants varied

among the programs. Populations targeted by these programs also varied

among the drug court programs and included adults and juveniles,

6

This number, which is based on GAO’s independent survey and other sources, differs from the 36 drug

court programs cited in GAO’s prior report (GGD-95-159BR) as started between 1989 and 1994, which

was based on information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse at the time.

7

“Completion rates” and “retention rates” are indicators commonly used in the drug court community

to measure the impact of drug court programs. Completion rates refer to individuals who completed or

were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a percentage of the total number admitted

and not still enrolled. This measure is an indicator of the extent to which offenders successfully

complete their drug court program requirements. Retention rates refer to individuals who are currently

active participants in or have completed or were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a

percentage of the total number admitted. This measure is an indicator of the extent to which a

program has been successful at retaining program participants in the program at the time of GAO’s

survey. Although interrelated, both measures are helpful in assessing program performance. A

program that had been operating consistently over a longer period would be expected to have similar

completion and retention rates.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

nonviolent and some violent offenders,8 offenders with and without a

substance addiction9

, and first-time and repeat offenders. However, drug

court programs most frequently reported that participants were typically

adult, nonviolent offenders with a substance addiction. The drug court

programs GAO surveyed reported that, since 1989, they had admitted over

65,000 offenders. The completion and retention rates for participants in

these programs were reported to range, respectively, from about 8 to

95 percent and 31 to 100 percent.

With the exception of follow-up data on program participants after leaving

the program, most drug court programs surveyed by GAO reported that

they maintained various types of data on program participants as

suggested by the Department of Justice in its guidance to jurisdictions

applying for federal grants under (1) Title V of the Violent Crime Act;

(2) the Health and Human Services’ Center for Substance Abuse and

Treatment in its drug court treatment guidelines; and (3) the National

Association of Drug Court Professionals’ Standards Committee, which

develops standards and provides guidance to drug court programs, in its

recently issued drug court program “Key Components” guide. In addition,

collaborative efforts among drug court program stakeholders have been

undertaken to study the feasibility of and suggest ways to overcome

obstacles, including cost and legal issues, associated with a recognized

need in the drug court community to collect and maintain follow-up and

other data on drug court program participants, which some drug court

programs and stakeholders have demonstrated to be feasible to collect.

GAO, for several reasons, could not draw any firm conclusions on the

overall impact of drug court programs or on certain specific issues raised

by Congress about the programs or their participants. For example, many

8

Survey responses were based on individual jurisdictions’ definitions of a “violent offender,” which

may or may not differ from the federal definition as defined under the Violent Crime Act to mean a

person who (1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, during the course of which offense or

conduct (a) the person carried, possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous weapon; (b) there occurred

the death of or serious bodily injury to any person; or (c) there occurred the use of force against the

person of another, without regard to whether any of the circumstances described in the

aforementioned subparagraphs is an element of the offense or conduct of which or for which the

person is charged or convicted; or (2) has one or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence

involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the intent to cause death or serious

bodily harm.

9

According to the Department of Health and Human Services officials and other drug court program

stakeholders, persons admitted without substance addictions are likely to include persons with

substance abuse problems who were not identified as being addicted during their initial screening. In

addition, some drug court programs target special populations. For example, the Jackson County,

Missouri, drug court program, in addition to targeting others, targets prostitutes because of the

likelihood that their drug abuse is the reason for their criminal behavior. Another program in Las

Vegas, Nevada, targets parents or guardians of juveniles who have been identified as having a

substance addiction.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

of the evaluations available at the time of GAO’s review (1) involved

programs that were relatively new at the time of the evaluations and were

diverse in nature; (2) had differences and limitations in their objectives,

scopes, and methodologies, including (in 11 of the 20 studies) no

assessment of program participants after they left the programs, and (in 14

of the 20 studies) no comparison of how participants and nonparticipant

arrest rates compared after program completion; and (3) showed varied

results regarding program impact and the specific issues raised about drug

court programs and their participants.

Justice, in conjunction with various stakeholders in the drug court

community, has initiated an impact evaluation, to be completed in 1999, of

four of the oldest drug court programs. This evaluation is designed to

address some of the factors associated with existing studies that

prevented GAO from reaching firm conclusions. However, GAO notes that

the outcomes of any future evaluations of drug court programs may be

hindered by the lack of available follow-up data, which drug court

programs are not currently required to collect. If issues raised by Congress

and others about the efficacy of drug court programs are to be addressed,

following up on participants and nonparticipants (i.e., eligible offenders

who chose not to participate) for some period after they leave the program

to find out whether they committed new crimes or relapsed into drug use

would be important.

Principal Findings

The Number of Drug Court

Programs and the

Availability of Funding

Have Increased

Based on GAO’s survey, 42 drug court programs were started between 1989

and 1994. Since then, 4 have closed and 123 more have started, bringing

the total number of drug court programs operating to 161 as of March 31,

1997. Moreover, an additional 154 drug court programs were in various

developmental stages as of the same date, indicating potential future

growth in the number of operating courts. Drug court programs were

operating in 38 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and were

being planned or studied in 8 of the remaining 12 states and Guam. About

40 percent of the drug court programs operating were in California and

Florida.

Overall, information obtained directly from federal funding sources and

134 of the 140 drug court programs identified as operating as of December

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

31, 1996, showed that over $125 million in resources was obtained from

federal, state, and local governments; private sources; and participant fees

for planning, implementing, enhancing, and/or evaluating drug court

programs.10 Federal funding, which has increased substantially since

1993,11 has provided over $80 million of the funding. From fiscal years 1990

through 1993, federal multipurpose funding sources provided about

$6 million in federal grants to support drug court programs. Since then,

about $75 million in additional federal funds have been awarded through

March 31, 1997. These funds were obtained from existing multipurpose

grants and three additional federal funding sources that made funds

specifically available for planning, implementing, enhancing, and/or

evaluating drug court programs.

Over 95 percent of the federal funding has been provided through federal

grants administered by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human

Services. Drug court programs reported that about $45 million was

provided by state and local governments, private sources, and/or fees

collected from program participants since 1989. However, in commenting

on a draft of this report, some drug court program stakeholders expressed

the opinion that this amount may understate the actual amount of funding

provided by state and local governments and other sources because some

of the respondents to GAO’s survey may have failed to include the

state/local jurisdictions’ contributions towards the administrative cost of

the program staff (judges, prosecutors, pretrial service staff, court clerks,

program coordinators, etc.) and/or cost of program facilities (courthouse

and other administrative facilities) that are often contributed by the local

jurisdiction.

10The total amount of funding supporting drug court programs is likely understated because (1) some

drug court programs were not able to determine the precise amount of funding they received from

federal, state, and local governments; private funding sources; and/or participant fees and (2) certain

multipurpose federal funding sources, which did not specifically target drug court programs, had not

been tracking the funding of drug court programs. In addition, information on the total amount of

various federal block grant funding awarded to jurisdictions and used to support drug court programs,

as well as Medicaid funding that may have been used by drug court participants to pay for the cost of

treatment, was not available from either the funding sources or recipients.

11Although GAO did not analyze the extent of increases in state and local funding, it has likely

increased during this same time period due to the requirements for matching funds associated with

most federal grants.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

Approaches,

Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention

Rates of Existing Drug

Court Programs Are

Diverse

In response to GAO’s survey, about 44 percent of the drug court programs

operating as of December 31, 1996, reported deferring prosecution of drug

offenders who agreed to enter a drug treatment program, and about

38 percent said that they allowed offenders to enter the program after

being adjudicated. About 10 percent reported that they used both

approaches, and the remaining 8 percent said they used some other

approach.

All of the drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, that

were surveyed by GAO reported having a treatment component, and

82 percent reported that participants generally started treatment within a

week of entering the program. However, the type and extent of treatment

provided to program participants varied among the drug court programs.

For example, drug court programs responding to a Drug Court

Clearinghouse survey reported using an array of treatment services, with

the use of these services varying among programs. In addition, some

programs reported that a weekly visit to the treatment provider was

required; others a minimum of three visits; and in some more extensive

programs, four to five visits per week were required.

The drug court programs responding to GAO’s survey reported targeting

various populations, including adults, women, juveniles, nonviolent and

violent offenders, offenders with and without a substance addiction,

first-time and repeat offenders, and probation violators. For example

• About 16 percent reported that juveniles were eligible to participate in

their drug court program.

• About 6 percent accepted offenders with a current conviction for a violent

offense.

• About 16 percent accepted offenders with a prior conviction for a violent

offense.

• About 17 percent accepted offenders without a substance addiction.

• About 78 percent accepted repeat offenders.

• About 63 percent accepted probation violators.

Drug court programs most frequently reported that program participants

were adult, nonviolent offenders with a substance addiction.

GAO’s analysis of responses to its survey further showed that as of

December 31, 1996, 65,921 people had been admitted to drug court

programs in the United States since 1989. About 31 percent (20,594) had

completed programs, and about 24 percent (16,051) had failed to complete

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

programs because they were terminated or they voluntarily withdrew or

died while in the program. About 40 percent, or 26,465 offenders, were

reported to be enrolled in drug court programs as of December 31, 1996.12

The status of the remaining 4 percent, or about 2,800 people, was

unknown.13

The completion rate for participants in 56 of the 62 drug court programs

surveyed that were identified as operating as of December 31, 1996, for

more than 18 months ranged from about 8 to 95 percent and averaged

about 48 percent.14 The retention rate for 131 of the 134 programs GAO

surveyed ranged from about 31 to 100 percent and averaged about

71 percent.15

Except for Follow-Up

Data, Most Drug Court

Programs Reported

Collecting and Using

Suggested Management

and Evaluation Data

Guidelines issued by Justice in 1996 require recipients of federal funds

from the Violent Crime Act to demonstrate the capability to ensure

adequate program management through ongoing monitoring, tracking, and

program evaluation. In this regard, the guidelines suggest that, among

other things, the following information be collected for drug court

participants and, to the extent possible, similarly situated nonparticipants:

• criminal justice history,

• history of substance abuse,

• level of use of controlled or addictive substances at the point of entry into

the program,

• data on substance abuse relapse while in the program,

• data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime while in the program,

• completion/noncompletion of drug court program,

• follow-up data on substance abuse relapse after completing the program,

and

• follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime after completing

the program.

12Of the 26,465 enrollees, about 25 percent, or 6,564, did not regularly attend programs or were wanted

on bench warrants for failure to appear as of December 31, 1996. However, the median for the 128 drug

court programs that were able to account for the status of enrolled program participants was 5

inactive participants, and 1 drug court program accounted for about 1,200 of the 6,564 inactive

enrollees.

13Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

14Completion rates were not applicable for three of the programs because they had retained

100 percent of the program participants admitted at the time of GAO’s survey. For the remaining three

programs, GAO was unable to calculate a completion rate because complete information on the status

of certain program participants could not be provided by the drug court programs surveyed.

15GAO was unable to calculate retention rates for three programs, because complete information on

the status of certain program participants could not be provided by the drug court programs surveyed.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

In commenting on a draft of this report, Justice pointed out that it does not

have the statutory authority to mandate that states or local jurisdictions

collect specific program data for drug court programs funded by its block

grants.

In its 1996 and 1997 guidance, the Department of Health and Human

Service’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment adopted similar

suggestions for collecting and maintaining data on program participants.

In its recently issued drug court program guide, the National Association

of Drug Court Professionals’ Drug Court Standards Committee also

adopted similar suggestions, including suggesting that data be collected

and maintained on relapse and criminal recidivism of program participants

after they leave the program and comparative data on similarly situated

nonparticipants. However, recipients of other federal funds administered

by the Department of Justice, as well as those receiving funds

administered by the State Justice Institute16 are not subject to similar

guidance.

Over 90 percent of the drug court programs operating as of December 31,

1996, reported maintaining most of the suggested data to enable them to

manage and evaluate their programs. However, about 67 percent of the

drug court programs reported not maintaining follow-up drug relapse data,

and about 47 percent reported not maintaining suggested follow-up data

on rearrest or conviction for a crime once participants leave the programs.

GAO’s survey results showed that no significant difference was associated

with the source of funding (federal, state/local, private, etc.) received and

the extent to which drug court programs collected and maintained

suggested follow-up data. GAO notes that since its survey was conducted,

additional evidence has become available to indicate that collaborative

efforts among stakeholders in the drug court community have been

undertaken to study the feasibility of and address obstacles, including cost

and legal issues, associated with a recognized need in the drug court

community to collect and maintain follow-up and other data on drug court

program participants.

A significant number of drug court programs and some drug court

community stakeholders have demonstrated that it would be feasible to

collect and maintain follow-up data on criminal recidivism of program

participants, and others have demonstrated that it would be somewhat

16The State Justice Institute is a nonprofit organization created by federal law and funded through

congressional appropriations. Among other things, the State Justice Institute has provided grants for

evaluation studies of drug court programs.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

feasible to collect and maintain follow-up data on drug use relapse. For

example, in March 1997, the Department of Justice through a cooperative

agreement with the Justice Management Institute sponsored a meeting

involving various drug court stakeholders that focused on, among other

things, the need for and ways to overcome obstacles associated with

obtaining follow-up data on program participants to adequately monitor

and evaluate the impact of drug court programs.

Existing Evaluations

Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not

Permit Firm Conclusions

Regarding Drug Court

Impact

The 20 evaluation studies that GAO reviewed and synthesized did not

permit GAO to reach definitive conclusions concerning the overall impact

of drug courts or the other specific issues mentioned earlier that have

been raised by Congress and in GAO’s discussions with the Senate and

House Judiciary Committees about drug court programs and the offenders

who participate in them. For example, many of the available studies

involved program approaches and characteristics that were diverse in

nature, including, among other things, differences in eligible participants,

differences in completion requirements, and differences in the type and

extent of treatment provided. Also, various differences and limitations

were associated with the objectives, scopes, and methodologies of these

studies. Among other things, most of the studies evaluated drug court

programs that were still in their first or second year of operation, with

many of the program participants being evaluated still active in the

programs. Most of the available studies involved very short follow-up

periods. Eleven of the 20 studies did not include an assessment of

postprogram criminal recidivism among program participants, and none of

the studies included an assessment of postprogram drug use relapse. Also,

most of the available studies (in 14 of the 20 studies) involved no

comparison between participants and nonparticipant arrest rates after

program completion.

Although GAO cannot draw any firm conclusions on the overall impact of

drug court programs or on specific issues that have been raised, GAO does

provide some limited information in chapter 5 on these issues to the extent

they are addressed in the 20 available studies it reviewed and synthesized.

In April 1997, Justice issued a solicitation for an impact evaluation of four

of the oldest drug court programs, which included an assessment of

program participants after they leave the program. Also, during a

March 1997 meeting involving Justice and various drug court program

stakeholders, attention was given to the need for maintaining follow-up

information on program participants and using it in any future impact

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

evaluations. Justice expects these efforts to address some of the factors

associated with existing studies that prevented GAO from drawing firm

conclusions.

Recommendations Congress and others have raised reasonable questions about whether drug

court programs are effective. However, these questions have not been

answered definitively by the programs themselves or studies done to date,

in large part because critical data about program participants after they

leave the program or similarly situated non-participants have not been

available. Accordingly, to help ensure more effective management and

evaluation of drug court programs, GAO recommends that the Attorney

General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services

• require drug court programs funded by discretionary grants administered

by Justice and Health and Human Services to collect and maintain

follow-up data on program participants’ criminal recidivism and, to the

extent feasible, follow-up data on drug use relapse.

• require drug court programs funded by formula or block grants

administered by Justice and Health and Human Services, to the extent

permitted by law, to collect and maintain follow-up data on program

participants’ criminal recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data

on drug use relapse. Where no statutory authority exists to impose such

requirements, GAO recommends that Justice and Health and Human

Services include in their respective grant guidelines language to suggest

that drug court programs funded by these sources similarly collect and

maintain such data.

To better ensure that conclusions about the impact of drug court programs

on participants’ criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse can be drawn,

GAO recommends that the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services, and the Executive Director of the State Justice Institute

require that the scope of future impact evaluations of drug court programs

funded by their respective agencies include an assessment of program

participants’ postprogram criminal recidivism and drug use relapse and,

whenever feasible, compare drug court participants with similar

nonparticipants.

Agency Comments

and GAO’s Evaluation

The Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, the State

Justice Institute, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

and the Drug Court Clearinghouse provided written comments on a draft

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

of this report. These comments are discussed at the end of chapters 1, 2,

and 5. These organizations generally agreed with GAO’s findings relating to

the growth, characteristics, and results of drug court programs and the

conclusions and recommendations relating to the collection and

maintenance of follow-up data on program participants and impact

evaluations of these programs. However, Justice raised a legal concern

about its ability to impose mandatory requirements on congressionally

authorized entitlement grants—formula or block grant programs. The

State Justice Institute raised concern about its ability to impose data

collection requirements on programs for which it only provides short-term

funding. Also, Justice and the National Association of Drug Court

Professionals indicated that one of the difficulties associated with GAO’s

recommendation that evaluations of drug court programs include

follow-up data and comparison groups is the lack of ongoing technical

assistance and sufficient resources available to drug court programs to

enable them to develop the capacity for data collection and program

evaluation. While Justice reiterated that it has taken a number of steps to

develop the capacity for data collection and evaluation among its drug

court grantees, Justice notes that it will work with Congress to increase its

funding for technical assistance.

GAO revised its recommendations to recognize statutory limitations that

may be associated with formula and block grant programs administered by

Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO did not,

however, systematically review and therefore cannot comment on the

sufficiency and adequacy of technical assistance and related resources

that are currently being provided to drug court programs.

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the Drug Court

Clearinghouse commented that while it may be too early to reach firm

conclusions on the impact of drug court programs, the retention and

completion rates from GAO’s survey results and the differences in

recidivism rates revealed in the evaluation studies reviewed by GAO permit

a more positive conclusion about drug court programs than GAO arrives at

in its report. GAO continues to believe it is essential to emphasize that there

are shortcomings associated with many of the evaluations of drug court

programs that have been done, and thus there are good reasons for

withholding final judgment until more and better data are collected and

additional studies are completed.

The Department of Health and Human Services expressed concerns with

the lack of a thorough assessment of the adequacy of treatment being

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Executive Summary

provided to drug court program participants in the scope of GAO’s study.

While GAO recognizes the Department’s view that it would be helpful to

have a detailed assessment of the quality and adequacy of the treatment

component of the drug court program, such an effort would have gone

well beyond the objectives and scope of this overview assessment of drug

court programs.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Contents

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1 

Introduction

22

Drug Court Approaches 23

Participant Eligibility Criteria 24

Treatment Requirements 24

Program Completion Requirements 25

Program Sanctions 26

Termination Criteria 26

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court

Programs and

Availability of

Funding Have

Increased

32

Growth in Number of Drug Court Programs 32

Sources of and Increase in Drug Court Program Funding 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 48

Chapter 3 

Approaches,

Characteristics, and

Completion and

Retention Rates of

Existing Drug Court

Programs Were

Diverse

50

Drug Court Programs Reported Using Various Approaches to

Process Offenders

50

Drug Court Programs Generally Reported Varying Types and

Range of Treatment Services

51

Drug Court Programs Reported Targeting a Diverse Group of

Offenders

53

Reported Completion and Retention Rates of Drug Court

Programs Varied

54

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Contents

Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up

Data, Most Drug

Court Programs

Reported Maintaining

and Using Suggested

Management and

Evaluation Data

61

DOJ, HHS’ CSAT, and the NADCP Standards Committee

Guidelines Suggest That Drug Court Programs Maintain Certain

Data on Participants

61

Most Drug Court Programs Reported They Maintain All but

Follow-Up Data on Participants

63

Feasibility Issues Relating to the Collection and Maintenance of

Follow-Up Data

65

Conclusions 68

Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations

Provide Some Limited

Information but Do

Not Permit Firm

Conclusions

Regarding Drug Court

Impact

69

Description of the Evaluation Studies 69

Various Factors Prevent Drawing Firm Conclusions Regarding

Drug Court Impact

70

General Outcomes Reported in Studies Relating to Specific Issues

Raised About Drug Court Programs

74

DOJ and Drug Court Community Efforts May Help to Provide

Some Definitive Answers

84

Conclusions 85

Recommendations 87

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 88

Appendixes Appendix I: Flowchart of Two Drug Court Approaches 92

Appendix II: Survey of Drug Court Programs 94

Appendix III: Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s Assessment of

Available Evaluations of Drug Court Programs

101

Appendix IV: Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31, 1997

129

Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Justice 141

Appendix VI: Comments From the Department of Health and

Human Services

146

Appendix VII: Comments From the State Justice Institute 151

Appendix VIII: Comments From the National Association of Drug

Court Professionals

155

Appendix IX: Comments From the Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project

158

Appendix X: Major Contributors to This Report 165

Bibliography 166

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Contents

Tables Table 2.1: Schedule of the Violent Crime Act Grant

Authorizations, Appropriations, and Awards

42

 Table 2.2: Number and Amount of the Violent Crime Act Grants

Awarded to Drug Court Programs, Fiscal Years 1995-1997

43

Table 2.3: Summary of Federal Funding Provided to Drug Court

Programs, Fiscal Years 1990-1997

45

Table 3.1: Types of Participants Reported as Eligible to

Participate in Drug Court Programs

54

Table 3.2: Completion and Retention Rates of Drug Court

Programs Operating as of December 31, 1996

56

 Table 4.1: Percentage of Drug Court Programs that Reported

Maintaining Data on Participants

64

Table 5.1: Matrix of Studies Showing Which Study Provided

Information on Congressional Issues

73

Table 5.2: Evaluation Studies Classified According to Whether

They Included Comparison Groups and When They Measured

Recidivism

80

Figures Figure 2.1: Increase in the Number of Drug Court Programs

Between 1989 and March 31, 1997

33

Figure 2.2: Number of Drug Court Programs Started Between

1989 and March 31, 1997

34

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Drug Court Program Locations as of

December 31, 1994, and March 31, 1997

36

Figure 2.4: Percentage of Drug Court Programs Reporting

Receiving Various Types of Funding

39

Figure 2.5: Percentage of Federal Funding, by Source 47

Figure 3.1: Various Approaches Used by Drug Court Programs to

Process Cases of Program Participants

51

Figure 3.2: Status of Drug Court Program Participants Admitted

Since 1989, as of December 31, 1996

55

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Contents

Abbreviations

AA Alcoholics Anonymous

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance

CSAT Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

DOJ Department of Justice

DCPO Drug Courts Program Office

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

JMI Justice Management Institute

LLEBG Local Law Enforcement Block Grants

NA Narcotics Anonymous

NADCP National Association of Drug Court Professionals

NCJRS National Criminal Justice Reference Service

NIJ National Institute of Justice

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

OJP Office of Justice Programs

SJI State Justice Institute

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Since the 1980s, the drug epidemic in the United States has contributed to

an overload of drug cases in many state and local criminal justice systems.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) estimates that each

year illegal drugs kill more than 16,000 Americans and cost taxpayers

nearly seventy billion dollars, and that more than half of all people brought

into the nation’s criminal justice system have substance abuse problems.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), these drug abusers were

more likely than nonabusers to be rearrested. In response to the deluge of

drug cases in the late 1980s and the cycle of criminal recidivism common

among drug offenders, some state and local jurisdictions began creating

drug courts.1

 Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) (hereafter referred to as the Violent Crime Act)

specifically authorizes DOJ to award federal grants for drug courts that

have programs offering court-supervised drug treatment. The act does not

authorize grants for courts designed solely to expedite the processing of

drug cases. Under this act, the Attorney General, in administering the

federal drug court grant program, is required to consult with the Secretary

of Health and Human Services (HHS), who is responsible for, among other

things, providing grants to public and nonprofit private entities that

provide substance abuse treatment for individuals under criminal justice

supervision.

The main purpose of drug courts is to use the authority of the court to

reduce crime by changing defendants’ drug-using behavior. Under this

concept, in exchange for the possibility of dismissed charges or reduced

sentences, defendants are diverted to drug court programs in various ways

and at various stages of the judicial process depending on the

circumstances. Typically, judges preside over drug court proceedings;

monitor the progress of defendants through frequent status hearings; and

prescribe sanctions and rewards as appropriate in collaboration with

prosecutors, defense attorneys, related criminal justice agencies,

treatment providers, and other social service and community

organizations. The extent and nature of collaboration depends on local

needs and the targeted population being served and, thus, may differ

considerably among drug court programs.

1

According to DOJ, two types of drug courts have evolved: those that (1) expedite drug cases without

court-supervised drug treatment and (2) use court-monitored drug treatment to attempt to achieve

changes in defendants’ drug-using behavior. This report focuses on the latter, drug treatment courts.

Throughout this report, we use the term “drug court programs” to refer to these courts. DOJ defines

drug treatment courts as special court calendars or dockets designed to achieve a reduction in

recidivism and substance abuse among nonviolent, substance abusing offenders by increasing their

likelihood for successful rehabilitation through early, continuous, and intense judicially supervised

treatment; mandatory periodic drug testing; and the use of appropriate sanctions and other

rehabilitation services.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The approaches used by and basic elements common to drug court

programs, including participant eligibility criteria, treatment requirements,

completion requirements, and program sanctions are discussed next.

Drug Court

Approaches

According to a report provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse,2 drug

courts have generally taken two approaches to processing cases:

(1) deferred prosecution (diversion) and (2) postadjudication. In the

deferred prosecution approach, shortly after being charged, defendants

waive their right to a speedy trial and enter a treatment program.

Defendants who fail to complete the treatment program have their charges

adjudicated. Defendants who complete the treatment program are not

prosecuted further or have their charges dismissed. This approach is

intended to capitalize on the trauma of arrest and offers defendants the

opportunity to obtain treatment and avoid the possibility of a felony

conviction.

In the postadjudication approach, defendants plead guilty or are tried and,

if convicted, their sentences are deferred and/or incarceration is

suspended pending successful completion of drug court program

requirements. This approach provides an incentive for the defendant to

rehabilitate because progress toward rehabilitation is factored into the

sentencing determination. (See app. I for a flowchart of these two drug

court approaches.)

According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals

(NADCP),3

 another common approach, the hybrid plea approach, generally

allows a defendant to enter a plea; waive rights to a jury trial; and/or admit

to evidence entered and enter the drug court program on a voluntary basis

for a limited trial period after which time the defendant has to decide

whether to remain in the program or serve his or her sentence.

2

The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, which is funded by the Department

of Justice’s Drug Courts Program Office, began operating October 1, 1995, under a cooperative

agreement with the American University, in partnership with the National Consortium of Treatment

Alternatives to Street Crime Program. The Drug Court Clearinghouse, among other things, compiles,

publishes, and disseminates information and materials on drug courts and provides technical

assistance to jurisdictions involved with planning and implementing drug court programs.

3

This is the principal organization of professionals involved in the development of treatment-oriented

drug courts. Organized in 1994 by the 12 original drug court programs, its members include judges,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment-service providers, educators, researchers, and community

leaders. NADCP acts primarily as an advocate for the development of effective drug court programs

and works to provide guidance to the drug court community through its education and training

programs. NADCP has no statutory or regulatory authority over drug court program operations.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Participant Eligibility

Criteria

According to the Drug Court Clearinghouse, drug court programs

generally accept defendants with substance abuse problems who were

being charged with drug possession and/or other nonviolent offenses such

as property crimes. Some drug court programs allow defendants who have

prior convictions, and others do not. In addition, as discussed in chapter 3,

our survey results show that some programs allow defendants without a

substance addiction and defendants currently or previously charged with a

violent offense. Federal grants administered under the Violent Crime Act

are not supposed to be awarded to any drug court program that allows

either current or past violent offenders to participate in its program.4

Treatment

Requirements

According to the Drug Court Clearinghouse, in most drug court programs,

treatment is designed to usually last at least 1 year and is generally

administered on an outpatient basis with limited inpatient treatment as

needed to address special detoxification or relapse situations.5

 Many of

the programs operate with the philosophy that because drug addiction is a

disease, relapses can occur and that the court must respond with

progressive sanctions and/or enhance treatment rather than immediately

terminate a participant.

The central element of all drug court programs is attendance at the

regularly scheduled status hearings at which the drug court judge

monitors the progress of participants. Monitoring is based on treatment

provider reports on such matters as drug testing and attendance at

counseling sessions. The judge is to reinforce progress and address

noncompliance with program requirements. The primary objectives of the

status hearing are to keep the defendant in treatment and to provide

continuing court supervision.

Treatment services are generally divided into three phases and

detoxification, stabilization, counseling, drug education, and therapy are

commonly provided during phases I and II and, in some instances,

throughout the program. Other services relating to personal and

educational development, job skills, and employment services are

4

The 1994 Violent Crime Act defines “violent offender” to mean a person who “(1) is charged with or

convicted of an offense, during the course of which offense or conduct (a) the person carried,

possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous weapon; (b) there occurred the death of or serious bodily

injury to any person; or (c) there occurred the use of force against the person of another, without

regard to whether any of the circumstances described in the aforementioned subparagraphs is an

element of the offense or conduct of which or for which the person is charged or convicted; or (2) has

one or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence involving the use or attempted use of

force against a person with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.”

5

These programs recognize that some individuals will require a longer period to complete the program.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

provided during phases II and III, after participants have responded to

initial detoxification and stabilization. Housing, family, and medical

services are frequently available throughout the program. In some

instances, a fourth phase consisting primarily of aftercare-related services

is provided. The objectives of drug court program treatment are generally

to (1) eliminate the program participants’ physical dependence on drugs

through detoxification; (2) treat the defendant’s craving for drugs through

stabilization, also referred to as the rehabilitation stage in which frequent

group and/or individual counseling sessions are generally employed; and

(3) focus on helping the defendant obtain education or job training, find a

job, and remain drug free.

HHS’ Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), which has provided

technical support, guidelines, and assistance to the drug court community,

in its 1997 planning guide and checklist for treatment-based drug courts6

identified the following as critical elements of comprehensive substance

abuse treatment:

• Screening to determine the likelihood of substance abuse;

• Assessment to determine the individual’s biopsychosocial needs, and to

develop an individualized treatment plan;

• Comprehensive, client-oriented treatment to include a range of

appropriate modalities, drug testing, cultural/gender specific needs,

mental and primary health care, anger management, and other adjunct

services (e.g., acupuncture, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics

Anonymous (NA), family assistance, housing, and employment);

• Therapeutic relapse prevention techniques to identify relapsing

triggers, and develop alternative responses; and

• Case management of the client’s performance, progress, rewards, and

sanctions consistent with the individualized treatment plan.

Program Completion

Requirements

Drug court programs typically require defendants to complete a treatment

program in order to graduate. Some impose other conditions defendants

must meet after treatment. These conditions could include remaining drug

free and not being arrested for a specified period, paying restitution, being

employed full-time, or performing community service.

In many jurisdictions, completion of the drug court program leads to a

dismissal of charges or termination of prosecution proceedings. In other

6

Substance Abuse Treatment Planning Guide and Checklist for Treatment-Based Drug Courts, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

jurisdictions, the guilty plea can be stricken, the defendant can be

sentenced to probation in lieu of incarceration, or the defendant’s

probation can be shortened. DOJ pointed out that some drug court case

records, including arrests, are sealed when defendants complete the

program.

Program Sanctions Sanctions for failing to abide by drug court program rules can include

(1) verbal warning from the judge; (2) transfer to an earlier stage of the

program; (3) incarceration for several days or weeks, generally increasing

with the number and severity of the violations; and (4) more frequent

status hearings, treatment sessions, or drug tests. Many programs also use

graduated sanctions, increasing the severity of the sanction with

subsequent violations of program rules.

DOJ also pointed out that most drug court programs use sanctions not to

simply punish inappropriate behavior but to augment the treatment

process. For example, many drug court programs will place a defendant in

residential treatment if he or she is unable to achieve satisfactory progress

in an outpatient setting. In addition, many drug court judges incarcerate

defendants for the purpose of detoxification rather than for inappropriate

behavior. According to NADCP, most drug court programs require some

initial period of incarceration.

Termination Criteria Drug court programs typically use various criteria for ending a defendant’s

participation in the program before completion. These criteria may include

a new felony offense, multiple failures to comply with program

requirements such as not attending status hearings or treatment sessions,

and a pattern of positive drug tests. According to DOJ, many drug court

programs do not terminate defendants for a new drug possession offense.

Before terminating a defendant for continuing to use drugs, drug court

programs generally will use an array of treatment services and available

sanctions. There are no uniform standards among all programs on the

number of failed drug tests and failures to attend treatment sessions that

lead to a participant being terminated. Drug court program judges

generally make decisions to terminate a program participant on a

case-by-case basis taking into account the recommendations of others,

including the treatment provider, prosecutor, and/or defense counsel.

Relapses are expected, and the extent to which noncompliance results in

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

terminations varies from program to program. Once a defendant is

terminated, he or she is usually referred for adjudication or sentencing.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act requires us to assess the

effectiveness and impact of federal grants awarded under Title V of the act

for drug court programs. In response to this requirement and based on

discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, our

objectives for this review were to answer the following key questions:

(1) What is the universe of and availability of funding for drug court

programs?

(2) What are the approaches used, characteristics of program participants,

type and extent of treatment provided, and retention and completion rates

of existing drug court programs?

(3) To what extent are program and participant data maintained and used

to manage and evaluate drug court programs?

(4) What conclusions can be drawn from existing published and

unpublished evaluations or assessments of drug court programs on the

impact of such programs, particularly as it relates to the

• criminal profile of drug court participants compared to similar offenders

processed through the traditional judiciary system,

• completion rates of participants,

• differences in characteristics between drug court program graduates and

dropouts,

• sanctions imposed on persons who failed to complete drug court

programs or comply with program requirements,

• drug use and criminal recidivism rates of program participants and

nonparticipants, and

• costs and benefits of drug court programs to the criminal justice system?

To determine the universe of drug court programs, we collected and

reviewed information from various units within DOJ, including the Drug

Courts Program Office (DCPO), which is responsible for administering the

federal drug court program under the Violent Crime Act; NADCP; and the

Drug Court Clearinghouse, which provided us with general information

that it had compiled on drug courts. To obtain more current and specific

information on the drug court universe, we (1) did computerized searches

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

of several on-line databases, including the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS); (2) did key-word searches concerning drug

court programs on the Internet; (3) sent a questionnaire to 134 of the 140

drug court programs identified as operating as of December 31, 1996;7

 and

(4) held structured telephone interviews with state and drug court

program officials throughout the United States to identify additional

jurisdictions that, as of March 31, 1997, had an operating drug court

program, were about to start a drug court program in 1997, were planning

a program, or were doing a feasibility study of establishing a drug court

program.

We received responses from all 134 drug court programs we surveyed.

However, with the exception of some limited verification of information

provided on the number of program participants admitted, terminated,

graduated, and currently enrolled, we did not verify the accuracy of the

data provided to us by the Drug Court Clearinghouse or by drug court

programs. Appendix II contains a copy of our survey questionnaire, with

summary responses to each question, as appropriate. In addition, we

visited two drug court programs in Baltimore and attended several focus

group meetings and drug court program conferences in 1996 and 1997 that

were sponsored by DOJ; NADCP; State Justice Institute (SJI), a nonprofit

organization created by federal law and funded through congressional

appropriations, which among other things, has provided grants for

evaluation studies of drug court programs; and the Justice Management

Institute (JMI), a nonprofit organization that provides training, technical

assistance, and other support for justice system agencies and courts in the

United States and abroad.

To determine DOJ’s responsibilities and plans for implementing the federal

grant program and to obtain information on drug court program funding,

we met with representatives of DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP),

including representatives from DCPO, who were responsible for

administering grants under the Violent Crime Act and providing technical

assistance and training to Violent Crime Act funded drug court programs;

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), who were responsible for

administering other DOJ grants, including discretionary and formula block

grants that have been used in support of drug court programs or

evaluations; and National Institute of Justice (NIJ), who have been

primarily responsible for DOJ’s evaluation of drug court programs and who

have also provided support for evaluation efforts in the drug court field.

7

We did not survey six drug court programs because they were not identified by information obtained

from various sources as operating as of December 31, 1996, until after May 15, 1997. This was well

after the completion of our survey of drug court programs.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

We also reviewed documents regarding these organizations’

responsibilities and plans for implementing and monitoring the federally

supported drug court program. We also sought and obtained funding

information from HHS’ CSAT, Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)

Community Development and Block Grant Program, and SJI. In addition,

we included a question on the survey sent to 134 of the 140 drug court

programs identified as operating as of December 31, 1996, on the amount

of funding received from federal, state/local, and private funding sources

and fees collected from program participants. With the exception of some

limited clarification of the reported sources and amounts of funding

received by drug court programs, we did not verify the accuracy of the

amount of funding from the various sources identified by the drug court

programs.

To determine the approaches used, key characteristics, and completion

and retention rates of existing drug court programs, we included in our

survey questions on program approaches and characteristics such as when

the program became operational; the types of participants eligible to

participate;8

 and the numbers of persons who had been admitted, had

completed, had failed to complete, and were actively participating in the

program as of December 31, 1996. In addition, we interviewed officials

from the Drug Court Clearinghouse and NADCP and reviewed documents

regarding these issues.

To determine the extent to which program and participant data are

maintained by and used to evaluate drug court programs, we included

questions about whether the drug court programs had program

monitoring, tracking, and evaluation capabilities, and about the types of

data on program participants that were maintained and whether the data

were computerized. We also spoke to representatives of DOJ’s DCPO and BJA

within OJP; CSAT, HHS; HUD; NADCP; and the Drug Court Clearinghouse about

the guidance for these areas and reviewed the guidelines and standards

they have provided.

To determine what conclusions could be drawn from existing published

and unpublished evaluations or assessments of drug court programs, we

first had to identify these studies. To do this, we used the same multistep

process that we used to identify drug court programs. Additionally, in our

survey, we asked respondents whether there had been any published or

8

The categories used in our survey instrument to gather information on the type of violent offenders

eligible to participate in drug court programs asked the survey respondents to use their jurisdiction’s

definition of a violent offense, which may or may not be the same as the federal definition of a violent

offense as defined in the Violent Crime Act authorizing grants to drug court programs.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

unpublished evaluations of their drug court programs, and if so, to send a

copy of the report.

We collected and reviewed information from 20 published and

unpublished evaluation studies that were written between 1991 and 1997

and covered 16 drug court programs that began operations between 1989

and 1996. (One program, in Broward County, FL, was covered by three

independent evaluations; and two programs, in Dade County, FL, and Los

Angeles County, CA, were covered by two evaluations.) A summary of the

outcomes reported in the 20 studies and our assessment of them are

contained in appendix III. The studies we reviewed represent all of the

primary studies we could obtain in time for this report that included, in

addition to a description of program operations, an evaluation component

(i.e., some information on the outcome or efficacy of the drug court

program in preventing relapse into drug use or criminal recidivism). In our

search for these evaluation studies, we identified a variety of other

published and unpublished documents that described program objectives

and operations, provided judicial commentary on these programs, and, in

some cases, provided a summary description of a number of programs.

This fuller set of materials pertaining to drug court programs is provided

in the bibliography.

We used a data collection instrument to systematically analyze and

evaluate these studies in terms of the information they provided on

program coverage (e.g., admissions criteria and participation rates),

program operations (e.g., program length, treatment components, and

completions rates), and program outcomes (e.g., drug use relapse and

criminal recidivism). We did not attempt to independently verify the

information provided in these studies. Each study was read and coded by a

social scientist with training in research methods. A second social scientist

and other members of our evaluation team then read the studies to verify

the accuracy of the items included on the data collection instrument.

Our review was done from October 1996 to May 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. In June 1997, we

provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General; the Administrator,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, HHS; the Executive Director

of SJI; the President of NADCP; and the Project Director of the Drug Court

Clearinghouse for their comments. Their written comments are

characterized and evaluated in chapters 1, 2, and 5 and are reprinted in

appendixes V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of this report. In addition, all of the

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

agencies and organizations provided some minor technical changes, which

have been appropriately incorporated throughout this report.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In its written comments, HHS expressed concerns with the scope of our

mandated study of drug court programs. HHS specifically noted that our

study did not include an examination of the clinical aspects of drug court

programs and opined that the rate at which drug court programs succeed

in their purpose—reducing drug-related crime—is dependent on the

quality and effectiveness of the substance abuse treatment provided as a

part of the program. In addition, HHS urged that all future studies

conducted under this mandate recognize the inter-dependency among the

several participating disciplines.

While we recognize HHS’s concerns, a review of the adequacy of the drug

treatment component would have been well beyond the objectives and

scope of this overview assessment of drug court programs.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

There has been a substantial increase in the number of operating drug

court programs in the United States and the availability of funding to

support and/or evaluate such programs. Between 1989 and 1994, 42

programs were started.1

 Since then, the total number of operating

programs has grown to 161 as of March 31, 1997. Moreover, the number of

new drug court programs is expected to continue to grow, with an

additional 154 programs identified as either about to start, being planned,

or in the feasibility study stage as of March 31, 1997. On the basis of our

analysis of data obtained from federal funding sources and drug court

program officials, over $125 million has been made available to plan,

implement, enhance, and/or evaluate drug court programs. Federal

funding, which has increased substantially since 1993,2

 has provided over

$80 million of the funding. Over 95 percent of the federal funding has been

provided through federal grants administered by DOJ and HHS. In addition,

drug court programs reported that about $45 million was provided by state

and local governments, private sources, and/or fees collected from

program participants since 1989.

Growth in Number of

Drug Court Programs

As figure 2.1 shows, the number of operating drug court programs has

increased substantially since 1994. Between 1989 and 1994, 42 drug court

programs had started. Since then, 4 have closed and 123 more have

started, bringing the total number of operating programs to 161 as of

March 31, 1997. An additional 32 drug court programs are expected to

begin operating in 1997, which would bring the total to 193 operational

programs by the end of 1997. Figure 2.2 shows the number of drug court

programs started each year since 1989.

1

This number, which is based on our independent survey and other sources, differs from the 36 drug

court programs cited in our prior report (GAO/GGD-95-159BR) as started between 1989 and 1994,

which was based on information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse at the time.

2

Although we did not analyze the extent of increases in state and local funding, it has also likely to

have increased due to the requirements for matching funds associated with most federal grants.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Figure 2.1: Increase in the Number of

Drug Court Programs Between 1989

and March 31, 1997

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

50

100

150

200

Calendar year

Number of operating drug court programs

2 2 6 10

21

41

84

140

161

Note: One drug court, which opened in 1989, closed in 1994; two drug courts, which opened in

1995, and one, which opened in 1996, closed during 1996. These drug courts closed due to lack

of funding and/or because of state/local government decisions not to continue the programs.

Sources: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, and

information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Figure 2.2: Number of Drug Court

Programs Started Between 1989 and

March 31, 1997

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Operating

Planned

53

21

32

59

43

21

11

4 4

2 0

Number of drug court programs

Calendar year

Sources: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, and

information obtained from the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

As of December 31, 1994, drug court programs were operating in 17 states

and the District of Columbia. As figure 2.3 shows, as of March 31, 1997,

drug court programs were operating in 38 states, the District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico. About 40 percent of these programs were located in

California and Florida.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Drug Court Program Locations as of December 31, 1994, and March 31, 1997

WA

(2)

OR

(2)

CA

(6) NV

(2)

AZ

(1)

CO

(1)

TX

(2)

MO

(1)

AR

(1)

AL

(1)

FL (12)

KY

(1)

DC (1)

MD (2)

DE (1)

MI

(3)

IL

(1)

GA

(1)

Drug Court Program Locations

(as of December 31, 1994)

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

WA

(3)

OR

(5)

CA

(41)

NV

(5)

AZ

(1)

CO

(1)

TX

(3)

MO

(2)

AR

(1)

AL

(4)

FL (22)

KY

(1)

DC (1)

MD (2)

DE (4)

MI

(4)

IL

(6)

MT

(1)

UT

(2)

OK

(3)

KS

(1)

MN

(1)

IA

(1)

NM

(4)

LA

(3)

GA

(2)

WI

(1)

TN (1)

SC

(2)

NC

(5)

VA

(1)

PA

(1)

NY

(7) MA (3)

CT (1)

NJ (1)

IN

(5)

OH

(5)

PR (3)

HI (1)

Drug Court Program Locations

(as of March 31, 1997)

Sources: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, and

information obtained from Drug Court Clearinghouse.

The growth in the number of drug court programs is likely to continue

over the next few years. In this regard, our review revealed that an

additional 154 drug court programs were identified as either about to start,

being planned, or in the feasibility study stage as of March 31, 1997. Also, 8

of the 12 states without drug court programs and 1 additional U.S. territory

(Guam) were either about to start, planning, or studying the feasibility of

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

starting a drug court program. Appendix IV provides summary information

on the status of drug court programs by jurisdiction as of March 31, 1997.

Sources of and

Increase in Drug

Court Program

Funding

Overall, our analysis of funding data and information obtained from

various federal and nonfederal funding sources and funding data reported

by drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, shows that

since 1989, over $125 million in resources derived from federal, state, and

local governments; private sources; and participant fees have been

provided to plan, implement, enhance, and/or evaluate drug court

programs.3

According to our analysis of data obtained from federal funding sources

and drug court program officials, federal funding sources, which have

increased substantially since 1993, have provided over $80 million in

funding.

Drug court programs we surveyed reported that about $45 million was

provided by state and local governments, private sources, and/or fees

collected from program participants since 1989. However, in commenting

on a draft of this report, DOJ, NADCP, and the Drug Court Clearinghouse

expressed the opinion that this amount may understate the actual amount

of funding provided by state and local governments and other sources

because some of the respondents to our survey may have failed to include

the state/local jurisdictions’ contributions towards the administrative cost

of the program staff (judges, prosecutors, pretrial service staff, court

clerks, program coordinators, etc.) and/or cost of program facilities

(courthouse and other administrative facilities) that are often contributed

by the local jurisdiction.

While several of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed were unable to

provide precise funding data, as figure 2.4 shows, about 80 percent of the

134 drug court programs we surveyed, reported that they had received

federal funding, over 80 percent reported receiving state/local government

3

The total amount of funding supporting drug court programs is likely understated because (1) some

drug court programs we surveyed were not able to determine the amount of funding they received

from federal, state, and local governments; private funding sources; and/or participant fees and

(2) certain multipurpose federal funding sources, which did not specifically target drug court

programs, had not been tracking the funding of drug court programs. In addition, information on the

total amount of HHS CSAT’ Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse and HUD’s

Community Development Block Grant funding that were awarded to jurisdictions and used to support

drug court programs, as well as Medicaid funding that may have been used by drug court participants

to pay for the cost of treatment, was not available from the federal funding source.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

funding, and about two-thirds reported that they had collected funds from

fees assessed on drug court program participants.

Figure 2.4: Percentage of Drug Court

Programs Reporting Receiving Various

Types of Funding

0

20

40

60

80

100

Federal State/local Private Fees

78

22

83

17

21

79

65

35

Percentage of drug court programs

Funds received

No funds received

Source: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

Federal Funding Has

Increased

The amount and sources of federal funding supporting drug court

programs have increased substantially since fiscal year 1993. Before the

establishment of a new grant program by DOJ and the passage of the

Violent Crime Act, there were no specific federal grants for drug court

programs. During this time, drug court programs were funded primarily by

multipurpose federal grants from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and

Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Local Law Enforcement Assistance4 (Byrne block grant program) and

Correctional Options Grants programs (a discretionary Byrne grant

program) administered by BJA,

5

 Block Grants for Substance Abuse

Prevention and Treatment and other grants awarded by HHS’ CSAT,

6

 and SJI.

7

The amount of these federal grants supporting drug court programs

totaled about $6 million.8

 Other funding was received from state and local

governments, private sources, and fees assessed on program participants.

Beginning in fiscal year 1994, additional federal funding sources became

available through the Comprehensive Communities Program (a

discretionary Byrne grant program), the passage of the Violent Crime Act,

and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program as authorized by

the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996

(P.L. 104-134). Additional funding was also made available from the

previously mentioned federal grant programs and other funding sources.

Excluding use of funds derived from HUD’s Community Development Block

4

The Byrne program was first authorized in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570). Federal

funding under this program consists of two discretionary programs and a formula block grant program

that must be used to improve criminal justice systems in order to reduce violent crime, the demand for

illegal drugs, or the availability of such drugs. Discretionary funds administered under this program

can be used to, among other things, establish demonstration projects and fund correctional options

programs. Under the Violent Crime Act, the Byrne program was authorized an additional $1 billion

over fiscal years 1995 through 2000.

5

BJA, a component of OJP, DOJ, is authorized by Congress to award discretionary grants to public and

private organizations for national scope, demonstration, training, and technical assistance programs

that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system and assist state and local governments in reducing

and preventing violent crime and drug abuse.

6

Under Title 42 (Sec. 290bb-4(a)) of the U.S. Code, the Director of CSAT is to provide grants to public

and nonprofit private entities that provide treatment for substance abuse to individuals under criminal

justice supervision.

7

SJI reported that, in addition to funding other programs and initiatives, it provides grants to support

drug court programs’ operations and evaluations, which require a 50-percent match.

8

Recipients of federal funds provided under some of these grant programs are required to provide

anywhere from 10 to 25 percent in matching funds.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Grant program and Medicaid, administered by HHS,

9

 the amount of

additional funds made available from new and existing funding sources

totaled about $75 million from fiscal year 1994 through March 31, 1997.

Federal Funding Sources Federal funding intended specifically for drug court programs became

available for the first time through DOJ’s establishment of the

Comprehensive Communities Program in fiscal year 1994.10 In fiscal year

1995, DOJ’s DCPO began administering the Violent Crime Act grants to state

and local jurisdictions for drug court programs. One year later, the Local

Law Enforcement Block Grants program as authorized by the Omnibus

Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 also made federal

funds available for several purposes, including drug court programs.

Comprehensive Communities

Program Funding

In 1994, BJA, under its authority to make grants to states for, among other

things, improving the functioning of the criminal justice system, began

implementation of a comprehensive community program based on the

crime control program in 16 U.S. jurisdictions. The objectives of the

Comprehensive Communities Program are to, among other things, develop

a comprehensive, multiagency strategy to control and prevent violent

crime and drug-related crime and to coordinate existing federal, state,

local, and private agency resources to maximize their impact on reducing

violent crime and drug-related crime. Funding under this program was

directed to be applied to seven local crime control and prevention

initiatives, including the planning, implementation, or enhancement of

drug court programs; alternatives to incarceration; and prosecution and

diversion initiatives. In fiscal year 1994, a total of $1.2 million was awarded

to six jurisdictions for drug court programs using discretionary Byrne

funds, and in fiscal year 1995, a total of $1.2 million was awarded to six

additional jurisdictions using Violent Crime Act funding.

Violent Crime Act Funding As table 2.1 shows, Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act authorized $1

billion over 6 years (fiscal years 1995 to 2000) for drug court programs.

Actual appropriations for the first 3 fiscal years have been less than the

authorized amount. About $57 million of the $400 million authorized by

Congress for the first 3 fiscal years was actually appropriated as of

March 31, 1997.

9

We were unable to include information on the growth or decline in the use of these funds to support

drug court programs because information was not available from federal funding sources responsible

for administering these programs.

10Funding provided to support drug court programs under the Comprehensive Communities Program

was derived from $1.2 million in funds transferred in late fiscal year 1994 from the Byrne program

administered by DOJ’s BJA, and $1.2 million in fiscal year 1995 funding that was transferred from

DOJ’s DCPO Violent Crime Act funding.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Table 2.1: Schedule of the Violent Crime Act Grant Authorizations, Appropriations, and Awardsa

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Congressional

authorization $100.0 $150.0 $150.0 $200.0 $200.0 $200.0 $1,000.0

Congressional

appropriation 11.9 15.0 30.0 n/a n/a n/a 56.9

DOJ/DCPO

awards $8.2 $8.4 $16.7 n/a n/a n/a $33.3

n/a = No funds were appropriated as of March 31, 1997.

aAs of March 31, 1997.

Sources: Public Law 103-322 and DOJ’s DCPO.

Of the $57 million appropriated by Congress, in addition to the transfer of

$1.2 million to the Comprehensive Communities Program in fiscal year

1995, DCPO, as of March 31, 1997, had awarded about $33 million in grants

to over 150 jurisdictions to fund drug court programs.11 DCPO can award

three types of grants:12

• Planning grants are for those jurisdictions that are interested in

establishing drug court programs and are in the early planning stage for

that effort. In fiscal year 1995, a jurisdiction could receive up to $35,000 for

a planning grant. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the maximum award was

$20,000 per jurisdiction.

• Implementation grants are for those jurisdictions that have already made a

commitment to develop a drug court program and have already identified

the target population to be served and the case processing procedures that

will be used. The maximum award for implementation grants was

$1 million for fiscal year 1995 and $400,000 for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

• Enhancement grants are for those jurisdictions with established drug

court programs to improve or enhance existing services. The maximum

11According to DOJ officials, the remaining funds were allocated for management and administrative

purposes (at approximately 1 percent of the annual amount appropriated) and to fund technical

assistance, training, and evaluations being sponsored by NIJ (at approximately 5 to 6 percent of the

annual DCPO appropriation). In addition, DCPO plans to issue additional fiscal year 1997 drug court

program awards of approximately $12 million during July-August 1997.

12Recipients of federal funds provided by DOJ’s DCPO under the Violent Crime Act are required to

provide at least 25 percent in matching funds from local sources. In-kind contributions may constitute

a portion of the nonfederal share.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

award for enhancement grants was $1 million in fiscal year 1995 and

$300,000 for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

Table 2.2 summarizes grants awarded for this source of funding.

Table 2.2: Number and Amount of the Violent Crime Act Grants Awarded to Drug Court Programs, Fiscal Years 1995-1997

1995 1996 1997a Total

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Type of grant

Number

of grants

Amount

awarded

Number

of grants

Amount

awarded

Number

of grants

Amount

awarded

Grants

awarded

Amount

awarded

Planning 52 $1.6 0 $0 79 $1.4 131 $3.0

Implementation 5 3.9 9 3.5 38 12.0 52 19.4

Enhancement 7 2.7 7 4.9 12 3.2 26 10.8

Total 64 $8.2 16 $8.4 129 $16.6 209 $33.2

aAs of March 31, 1997.

Source: DOJ’s DCPO.

Local Law Enforcement Block

Grants Program

The Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996

authorized the Director of BJA to make funds available to units of local

government under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program for

the purposes of reducing crime and improving public safety. Grants

awarded under this program could be for any of seven purpose areas, one

of which was for establishing or supporting drug court programs. For

fiscal year 1996, $503 million was appropriated for the Local Law

Enforcement Block Grants program, but after deductions for legislatively

mandated earmarks and program administration costs, $424 million

remained available for distribution to eligible jurisdictions. Of this amount,

about $14.5 million was awarded to 93 units of local government in 32

states for use by drug court programs.13 In fiscal year 1997, $523 million

was appropriated, of which about $467 million is available for distribution

to eligible jurisdictions. DOJ plans to make grants to eligible jurisdictions in

mid-1997, including grants to fund drug court programs.

Other Federal Funding Sources In addition to funding specifically designated for drug court programs,

other multipurpose federal grants continued to be available and used to

support drug court programs. These sources included additional funding

totaling about $14 million made available in fiscal years 1994 through 1996

13Recipients of federal funds provided under a grant for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants

program are required to provide at least 10 percent in matching funds.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

by DOJ under the Byrne block grant and Correctional Options Grants

programs and about $8 million from a variety of HHS’ CSAT grants for drug

court programs that were made available between fiscal years 1994

through 1997, including one new grant initiative, the Criminal Justice

Treatment Networks,14 which provided initial funding in fiscal year 1995,

and CSAT’s Target Cities initiative, which provided initial funding in fiscal

year 1993.15

SJI, a nonprofit organization created by federal law and funded through

congressional appropriations, has provided about $1.6 million in support

of drug court program initiatives (primarily funding evaluation studies)

since 1990. In addition, some drug court programs also reported receiving

funds during our survey period that were derived from other federal

funding sources (totaling about $2.1 million) that included, among others,

about $104,500 in funds derived from HUD’s Community Development

Block Grant program and about $49,000 in Medicaid funds. As previously

noted, the total amount of HUD grants and Medicaid resources used to

support drug court operations was not directly available from either the

funding sources or all of the recipients.

Excluding funding that may have been derived from HUD’s Community

Development Block Grant program and Medicaid, table 2.3 shows federal

funding awarded to drug court programs from fiscal year 1990 to

March 31, 1997. Fiscal years 1990 to 1993 funding totaled about $6 million,

and fiscal year 1994 to March 31, 1997, funding totaled about $75 million.

14CSAT’s Criminal Justice Treatment Networks focuses on the involvement of three clusters of the U.S.

population: adult females, adult males, and juveniles. Funding has generally been provided to

jurisdictions with the ability to participate in CSAT knowledge generation activities through cross-site

evaluation efforts and contribution of data derived from these clusters.

15CSAT’s Target Cities grants are intended to, among other things, further knowledge about treatment

and facilitate early access to treatment.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

Table 2.3: Summary of Federal Funding Provided to Drug Court Programs, Fiscal Years 1990-1997

Fiscal year

Dollars in thousands

Federal funding sources 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997a Total

Department of

Justiceb

Byrne block

grants $188 $740 $263 $1,658 $2,041 $5,265 $4,532 0c $14,687

Comprehensive

Communities

Program n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,200 1,200 0d 0d 2,400

Correctional

Options Grants n/a n/a 500 999 1,100 690 370 n/ae 3,659

Violent Crime

Act Fundingf n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 8,216 8,366 16,671 33,253

Local Law

Enforcement

Block Grants n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,455g 0h 14,455

Department of

Health and

Human

Servicesi

CSAT Grants for Substance Abuse Treatment in State and Local Criminal Justice System

D.C. Superior

Court Drug

Intervention

Project n/a n/a n/a 799 0 2,307 0 430 3,536

Criminal

Justice

Treatment

Networks n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,800 2,568 0 4,368

CSAT Grants for Treatment Improvement

Target Cities

Grants n/a n/a n/a 20 310 578 275 0 1,183

State Justice

Institute

SJI Grantsj 123 0 228 313 245 410 0 319 1,638

Total $311 $740 $991 $3,789 $4,896 $20,466 $30,566 $17,420 $79,179

(Table notes on next page)

Page 45 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

n/a = Funds for this program were not applicable during this fiscal year.

Note: The total noted above excludes about $2.1 million in federal funds that were derived from

other federal sources not noted in the table. Also, funds provided by DOJ and other federal

agencies that may have been used for evaluation, technical assistance, and/or training for drug

court programs or officials may not be reflected in the totals. As a result, the total amount

provided likely understates the total amount of federal financial support for drug court programs.

aAs of March 31, 1997.

bFederal funds awarded by DOJ under its various grant programs must be used to supplement

existing funds for program activities and not replace funds that have been appropriated for the

same purpose.

cDOJ did not provide information for fiscal year 1997 funding noting, that it is very unlikely that

states have begun funding subgrantees, and that it would therefore give a very false impression

of the level of funding for the fiscal year.

dDOJ was unable to provide specific information on the amount of funding for this fiscal year.

According to DOJ officials, BJA’s Comprehensive Communities Program saw a significant

reduction in funding in fiscal year 1996, with no significant increases anticipated in the future.

eThe Correctional Options Grants program was zeroed out in fiscal year 1996, and no additional

funding was made available for fiscal year 1997. DOJ officials noted that no further federal

support of this initiative is anticipated.

f

The Violent Crime Act also authorized funding for, among other things, program administration

and management, technical assistance and training, and a federally funded impact evaluation of

the drug court program.

gRepresents the estimated amount jurisdictions reported to DOJ as identified for drug court

program use.

hAccording to DOJ officials, fiscal year 1997 LLEBG awards will be made by the end of fiscal

year.

i

CSAT also provided additional funding between fiscal years 1993 and 1997 totalling about

$1.1 million under its authority to award grants for substance abuse treatment in criminal justice

systems and its authority to issue Block Grants for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment.

These grants were provided primarily for technical assistance, publications, and

conferences/meetings, and is not included in the totals provided. Given jurisdictional discretion

for awarding block grant funds received from CSAT, the total amount of funds awarded under

CSAT’s block grant program to various state and local jurisdiction was not available from either

the funding source or the grant recipient and is therefore likely understated.

j

Grants awarded by SJI have been primarily awarded for efforts to evaluate drug court programs

and to support judicial education programs about drug courts. Only small-scale planning,

implementation, and enhancement projects have been supported through SJI technical

assistance grants. (The 1995 funding included a $355,000 grant to support a National

Symposium on Drug Courts conducted by the American University.)

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from federal funding sources.

As figure 2.5 shows, information obtained from federal funding sources

indicates that about 40 percent (or about $33 million) of the identified

federal funding for these programs has been derived from the Violent

Crime Act funding administered by DOJ’s DCPO. Also, DOJ and HHS accounted

Page 46 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

for over 95 percent of the federal funding supporting drug court programs

operations and/or evaluation studies.

Figure 2.5: Percentage of Federal

Funding, by Source

Other federal funding

Violent Crime Act funding

Violent Crime Act funding

Other federal 

sources 2.5%

HHS' CSAT grants

Comprehensive Communities

Program 2.9%

Correctional Options

Grants 4.5%

Byrne formula grant program

LLEBG

State Justice

Institute 2.0%

17.6%

12.3%

17.9%

40.4%

a

a

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

aByrne discretionary grant program.

Sources: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996, and information

obtained directly from federal funding sources.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

State and Local

Governments

Respondents to our survey reported that over $38 million was provided by

state and local governments.16 A portion of this amount represents

required state/local government matching of federal funds.

Private Funding Respondents to our survey reported that about $3 million of the drug court

program funding came from private sources, such as grants/donations

from foundations, corporations, or charitable organizations, etc.

Participant Fees Sixty-five percent of drug court programs operating as of December 31,

1996, reported that they charged participant fees for some of the services

provided. These programs reported that they assessed a variety of fees,

with most assessing fees for drug treatment and drug testing that program

participants are required to undergo. Among other things, drug court

programs assessed fees to cover administrative and court processing

costs, supervision, counseling, housing, and transportation. Some also

assessed participant fees as penalties or incentives for improvement. In

many of the drug court programs, the reported participant fee amount

assessed varied, and in some cases, depended on the ability of the program

participant to pay. The reported fees assessed on program participants

varied within and across programs from $1 for drug testing in one program

to a maximum program fee of $4,625 for certain higher income

participants in another program. Participant fees accounted for about

$2.5 million of the reported funding.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In their comments on a draft of this report, DOJ, NADCP, and the Drug Court

Clearinghouse expressed concern with our estimate of the proportion of

drug court costs that were funded by the federal government. We

reconsidered the information we had available to make that estimate, and

decided in retrospect not to present the information in the same way.

While we were able to derive what we believe to be reliable estimates of

federal funds from federal funding sources, we were unable to derive

direct estimates of state and local funds, except as they were reported to

us by the drug court program officials we surveyed, which in some cases

included judges, court administrators, program directors and managers,

16The total amount of state/local government funding supporting drug court programs is likely

understated because some drug court programs were not able to determine the amount of funding they

received from their state or local governments. In addition, 21 drug court programs who reported that

they were receiving federal grants requiring matching funds did not report required state and local

matching funds. We discussed this matter with DOJ officials and suggested that they follow up to

determine whether these drug courts are in compliance with the matching requirements for federal

funding. We plan to follow up on what actions DOJ has taken.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 2 

Number of Drug Court Programs and

Availability of Funding Have Increased

and/or state and local budget officials. Accordingly, we have deleted parts

of our draft report that previously provided a comparative analysis on the

proportion of federal funding among all drug court funds, and revised the

presentation to focus on levels and sources of funding without comparing

them directly to funds from other sources.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Drug court programs identified as operating as of December 31, 1996,

reported using various approaches. Although all the programs responding

to our survey reported having a treatment component, results from a Drug

Court Clearinghouse survey showed that the type and extent of treatment

and rehabilitative services provided to drug court program participants

varied among programs. In addition, drug court programs reported that

they targeted various populations, including adults, women, juveniles,

nonviolent and violent offenders, offenders with and without a substance

addiction, first-time and repeat offenders, and probation violators. Drug

court programs most frequently reported that program participants were

adult, nonviolent offenders with a substance addiction. Since 1989, over

65,000 people were reportedly admitted to drug court programs in the

United States. The completion rates for drug court program participants

were reported to range from about 8 percent to 95 percent, and the

retention rates ranged from about 31 percent to 100 percent.1

Drug Court Programs

Reported Using

Various Approaches

to Process Offenders

Some drug court programs responded that they deferred prosecuting

(diversion) offenders who entered their program, some allowed offenders

to enter their program after their case had been adjudicated, others used

both approaches, and some used other approaches, including allowing

offenders to enter their program on a trial basis after entering a plea. As

figure 3.1 shows, about 44 percent of the drug court programs operating as

of December 31, 1996, reported using a deferred prosecution (diversion)

approach to adjudicate drug offenders, about 38 percent said that they use

a postadjudication approach, about 10 percent said that they use both

deferred prosecution and postadjudication, and about 8 percent said that

they use the hybrid plea or some other approach.

1

“Completion rates” and “retention rates” are indicators commonly used in the drug court community

to measure the impact of drug court programs. “Completion rates” refer to individuals who completed

or were favorably discharged from a drug court program as a percentage of the total number admitted

and not still enrolled. This measure is an indicator of the extent to which offenders successfully

complete their drug court program requirements. “Retention rates” refer to individuals who are

currently active participants in or have successfully completed a drug court program as a percentage

of the total number admitted. This measure is an indicator of the extent to which a program has been

successful at graduating or retaining offenders as active program participants in the program at the

time of our survey. Although interrelated, both measures are helpful in assessing program

performance. A program that had been operating consistently over a longer period of time would be

expected to have similar completion and retention rates.

Page 50 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Figure 3.1: Various Approaches Used

by Drug Court Programs to Process

Cases of Program Participants

10%

Deferred and postadjudication

Deferred prosecution

Other approaches

Postadjudication

8%

44%

38%

Source: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

Drug Court Programs

Generally Reported

Varying Types and

Range of Treatment

Services

All of the drug court programs responding to our survey reported having a

treatment component as a part of the overall drug court program. Twenty

percent of the drug court programs reported having a waiting list for

treatment, and about 82 percent reported that participants generally start

treatment within 7 days.

Our survey did not cover types of treatment. However, according to results

from a 1997 survey conducted by the Drug Court Clearinghouse of drug

court programs, the type and extent of treatment provided to program

participants varied among drug court programs. The Drug Court

Clearinghouse survey found that the range of treatment and rehabilitation

services being delivered by drug court programs were expanding

significantly. Treatment providers for 72 drug court programs that

responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s survey generally reported

using an array of substance abuse and individual rehabilitation services,

Page 51 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

including detoxification, stabilization, counseling, therapy, drug education,

and relapse prevention.2

Other services relating to personal and educational development, such as

job skills and employment services, were reported as frequently provided

after participants have responded to initial detoxification and stabilization.

Housing, family, and medical services were also reported as being

frequently available throughout the program. All but four of the reporting

programs indicated the use of individualized client treatment plans for

drug court participants.3

 About 40 percent of the programs responding to

the Drug Court Clearinghouse survey reported that they also used

acupuncture as an adjunct to treatment services.

According to the results of the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s survey, drug

court programs have also expanded their treatment and rehabilitation

services to recognize the diversity of both treatment and other needs of

program participants and to treat not only the participant’s addiction but

the numerous associated personal problems most participants encounter

(e.g, physical, mental, housing, family, employment, self-esteem, etc.).

Results from the Drug Court Clearinghouse survey show that some drug

court programs have also established specific ethnic and/or cultural

sensitive treatment components and have focused on special classes of

defendants (e.g., pregnant women, mothers, fathers, and persons who

have been sexually abused).

The Drug Court Clearinghouse survey also showed that drug court

programs generally provided treatment in about three or more phases,

with the most intensive phase occurring during the first 30 to 90 days.

During this phase, program participants are usually subject to (1) frequent

visits to a treatment provider, which some programs reported requiring a

weekly visit, others three visits per week, and in some more extensive

programs, four to five visits per week; (2) frequent drug tests, which some

programs reported as required once a week and others twice a week; and

(3) face-to-face contact with the drug court judge, which also varied

among the programs from weekly to biweekly.

Drug court programs responding to the Drug Court Clearinghouse survey

generally reported that, decreases and/or increases in the intensity and

2

Drug court programs responding to the Drug Court Clearinghouse survey generally reported that they

did not maintain the capability to refer program participants to inpatient treatment for more than 30

days.

3

About 40 percent of the programs indicated that they updated these plans every 30 days, 10 percent

every 60 days, and the remaining 50 percent every 90 days.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

length of treatment services for a participant were usually determined by

the treatment provider based on criteria similar to that used to make

recommendations regarding the movement of participants from one

program phase to another (e.g., drug test results, attendance at counseling

sessions, and length of time in the program). The Drug Court

Clearinghouse survey also showed that most drug court programs require

a minimum period of participation and sobriety. Although this requirement

also varied among programs, it was generally reported that at least 12

months of participation and being drug free for a period of at least 4 to 6

months was required for program completion.

Drug Court Programs

Reported Targeting a

Diverse Group of

Offenders

As table 3.1 shows, drug court programs responding to our survey

reported targeting various types of offenders, including adults, women,

juveniles, nonviolent and violent offenders, offenders with and without a

substance addiction, first-time and repeat offenders, and probation

violators. About 16 percent of the drug court programs we surveyed

reported that juveniles were eligible to participate in their drug court

program, about 6 percent allowed offenders with a current conviction for

a violent offense, about 16 percent allowed offenders with a prior

conviction for a violent offense,4

 about 17 percent allowed offenders

without a substance addiction,5

 about 78 percent allowed repeat offenders,

and about 63 percent allowed probation violators. However, drug court

programs most frequently reported that eligible program participants were

adult, nonviolent offenders with a substance addiction.

4

Our analysis of drug court programs’ responses to our survey showed that about 10 drug court

programs that reported receiving grant funds under the Violent Crime Act also reported that certain

violent offenders, using their jurisdiction’s definition of a violent offender, were eligible to participate

in their programs. As discussed previously in this report, the act prohibits grants from being awarded

to any drug court program that admits certain violent offenders. We discussed this matter with DOJ

officials and plan to follow up with them on this issue.

5

According to HHS officials and other drug court program stakeholders, persons admitted without

substance addictions are likely to include persons with substance abuse problems who were not

identified as being addicted during their initial screening. Also, some drug court programs target

special populations who may not have a substance addiction. For example, the Jackson County, MO,

drug court program, in addition to targeting others, targets prostitutes because of the likelihood that

their drug abuse is the reason for their criminal behavior. Another program in Las Vegas, NV, targets

parents or guardians of juveniles who have been identified as having a substance addiction.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Table 3.1: Types of Participants

Reported as Eligible to Participate in

Drug Court Programs

Type of eligible program participants

Percent of drug court

programs allowing

participation

Adult males 87

Adult women 88

Juveniles 16

Nonviolent offenders 93

Offenders whose current conviction

included a violent offense 6

Offenders convicted of any

previous violent offense 16

Offenders with a substance

addiction 96

Offenders without a

substance addiction 17

First-time offenders 84

Repeat offenders 78

Probation violators 63

Other types of offendersa 8

aThese other types of offenders included child welfare, guardianship, neglect or abuse cases,

and violators of court-ordered treatment.

Source: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

Reported Completion

and Retention Rates

of Drug Court

Programs Varied

Drug court programs responding to our survey reported that, as of

December 31, 1996, 65,921 people had been admitted to drug court

programs in the United States since 1989. As figure 3.2 shows, of the

65,921 people admitted, about 31 percent (20,594) had completed drug

court programs, and about 24 percent (16,051) had failed to complete the

program because they were terminated for various reasons, including drug

relapse or criminal recidivism, or because they voluntarily withdrew or

died while in the program.

Forty percent, or 26,465 offenders, were reported to be enrolled in drug

court programs as of December 31, 1996. Of the 26,465 enrollees, about

25 percent, or 6,564, did not regularly attend the program or were wanted

on bench warrants for failure to appear.6

 This rate is slightly lower than

6

The median for the 128 drug court programs that were able to account for the status of enrolled

program participants was 5 inactive participants; one drug court program accounted for about 1,200 of

the 6,564 inactive enrollees.

Page 54 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

the 27-percent rate reported by DOJ for felony drug defendants released

before case disposition who fail to make scheduled court appearances.7

Three of the 134 drug court programs responding to our survey were

unable to accurately account for the status of the remaining 4 percent, or

about 2,800 offenders, due to loss of data files or inadequate

recordkeeping systems. One additional drug court program was unable to

provide information for program participants between 1993 and 1994.

Figure 3.2: Status of Drug Court

Program Participants Admitted Since

1989, as of December 31, 1996

31.2%

20.8%

3.4%0.2%

4.3%

30.2%

10.0%

31.2%

20.8%

10%

30.2%

Graduated/completed 

Inactively enrolled

Actively enrolled

Voluntarily withdrew

3.5%

Terminated

Status unknown

4.3%

Not enrolled or status unknown

Enrolled 

Note: Less than 1 percent or 100 drug court program participants died while in the drug court

program.

Source: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

7

“Drugs and Crime Facts,” 1994. DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Range of Reported

Completion and Retention

Rates

As table 3.2 shows, the completion rates for program participants in 56 of

the 62 drug court programs we surveyed that were operational as of

December 31, 1996, for more than 18 months, ranged from 8 to 95 percent.8

The average completion rate for these drug court programs was about

48 percent.

The retention rates for 131 of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed

that were operating as of December 31, 1996, also varied—ranging from a

low of about 31 percent to a high of 100 percent.9

 The average retention

rate for these programs was about 71 percent. In comparison, the OJP Drug

and Crime Working Group, in a January 1996 report, noted that available

research findings indicated that relatively few individuals remained in drug

treatment programs, in general, long enough to show reduced recidivism

and other favorable treatment outcomes. The study also noted that

persons who attended and remained in drug treatment programs for a

sufficient length of time showed reduced recidivism and other favorable

outcomes.

Table 3.2: Completion and Retention Rates of Drug Court Programs Operating as of December 31, 1996

Jurisdiction of drug court program Start date

Total

offenders

admitted

Completion

rate

Retention

rate

Birmingham, AL (adult) Jan. 1996 150 n/a 89%

Birmingham, AL (juvenile) Jan. 1996 105 n/a 90%

Mobile, AL Feb. 1993 542 39% 52%

Phoenix, AZ Mar. 1992 a b b

Little Rock, AR June 1994 640 31% 42%

Bakersfield, CA July 1993 1,375 59% 66%

Chico, CA June 1995 375 34% 49%

El Monte, CA July 1994 87 69% 77%

Fresno, CA March 1996 825 n/a 93%

Los Angeles, CA (adult) May 1994 404 39% 52%

Modesto, CA June 1995 78 22% 69%

Oakland, CA

(adult/Diversion Court) Jan. 1991 6,579 43% 48%

(continued)

8

Completion rates were not applicable for three of the programs because they had retained 100 percent

of the program participants admitted at the time of our survey. For the remaining three programs, we

were unable to calculate a completion rate because complete information on the status of certain

program participants could not be provided by the drug court program surveyed.

9

We were unable to calculate retention rates for three programs because complete information on the

status of certain program participants could not be provided by the drug court program surveyed.

Page 56 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Jurisdiction of drug court program Start date

Total

offenders

admitted

Completion

rate

Retention

rate

Oakland, CA

(adult/postadjudication) Jan. 1995 1,879 n/a 62%

Pasadena, CA May 1995 30 42% 63%

Porterville, CA Apr. 1996 107 n/a 78%

Riverside, CA Sept. 1995 98 n/a 66%

Roseville, CA Sept. 1995 49 n/a 71%

Sacramento, CA Mar. 1996 341 n/a 41%

Salinas, CA July 1995 125 n/a 50%

San Bernardino, CA Nov. 1994 267 65% 72%

San Francisco, CA (adult) Mar. 1995 282 32% 60%

San Jose, CA (adult) Sept. 1995 159 n/a 81%

San Jose, CA (juvenile) Aug. 1996 25 n/a 88%

San Mateo, CA Oct. 1995 304 n/a 47%

Santa Anna, CA (adult) Mar. 1995 74 71% 84%

Santa Barbara, CA Mar. 1996 86 n/a 57%

Santa Maria, CA Mar. 1996 98 n/a 60%

Santa Monica, CA Jan. 1996 75 n/a 35%

Santa Rosa, CA Feb. 1996 88 n/a 77%

Stockton, CA July 1995 357 n/a 44%

Tulare, CA (adult) May 1996 45 n/a 78%

Tulare, CA (juvenile) Oct. 1995 147 n/a 62%

Ukiah, CA Sept. 1996 20 n/a 85%

Ventura, CA Apr. 1995 157 35% 61%

Visalia, CA (adult) Mar. 1996 31 n/a 32%

Woodland, CA Mar. 1995 577 35% 59%

Yosemite National Park, CA

(Federal Court) Jan. 1995 31 68% 71%

Denver, CO July 1994 2,900 28%c 68%c

New Haven, CT July 1996 45 n/a 84%

Dover, DE Apr. 1996 84 n/a 87%

Georgetown, DE Apr. 1996 75 n/a 88%

Wilmington, DE (adult) Oct. 1993 980 61% 68%

Wilmington, DE (juvenile) Sept. 1995 99 n/a 91%

Washington, D.C. (adult) Jul. 1994 913 48% 51%

Bartow, FL Dec. 1994 377 29% 61%

Crestview, FL Oct. 1993 179 50% 65%

Fort Lauderdale, FL (adult) June 1991 4,378 72% 76%

Gainesville, FL Mar. 1994 259 18% 37%

(continued)

Page 57 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Jurisdiction of drug court program Start date

Total

offenders

admitted

Completion

rate

Retention

rate

Jacksonville, FL Sept. 1994 325 40% 65%

Key West, Fl (adult) May 1993 162 82% 82%

Key West, Fl (juvenile) April 1996 22 n/a 100%

Marathon, FL (adult) June 1995 3 n/a 100%

Marathon, FL (juvenile) May 1996 14 n/a 100%

Miami, FL June 1989 11,600 80% 73%

Pensacola, FL (adult) June 1993 440 46% 51%

Pensacola, FL (parents) Feb. 1996 30 n/a 93%

Pensacola, FL (juvenile) April 1996 35 n/a 86%

Plantation Key, FL (adult) May 1995 4 n/a 100%

Plantation Key, FL (juvenile) May 1996 24 n/a 75%

Tallahassee, FL Jan. 1994 375 77% 85%

Tampa,FL (adult-diversion) June 1992 492 67% 68%

Tampa, FL

(adult-postadjudication) July 1994 3,782 b b

Tampa, FL (juvenile) Feb. 1996 88 n/a 89%

Viera, FL Oct. 1994 424 51% 70%

Macon, GA Jan. 1994 268 49% 70%

Honolulu, HI Jan. 1996 147 n/a 84%

Cook County, IL (juvenile) Oct. 1996 37 n/a 95%

Edwardsville, IL March 1996 104 n/a 64%

Markham, IL March 1994 875 62% 89%

Rockford, IL Oct. 1996 28 n/a 82%

Gary, IN (juvenile) June 1995 147 82% 88%

Gary, IN (adult) Sept. 1996 63 n/a 35%

Lake County, IN Sept. 1996 42 n/a 50%

Terre Haute, IN Oct. 1996 31 n/a 90%

Des Moines, IA Sept. 1996 28 n/a 64%

Wichita, KS July 1995 427 n/a 82%

Louisville, KY July 1993 281 33% 66%

Baton Rouge, LA (adult) Jan. 1995 567 67% 87%

Baltimore, MD

(adult-District) March 1994 827 53% 39%

Baltimore, MD (adult-Circuit) Oct. 1994 317 8% 44%

Dorchester, MA June 1995 160 39% 71%

Worcester, MA Feb. 1996 57 n/a 72%

Kalamazoo, MI (females) June 1992 306 37% 48%

St. Joseph, MI Oct. 1991 1,884 b b

(continued)

Page 58 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Jurisdiction of drug court program Start date

Total

offenders

admitted

Completion

rate

Retention

rate

Kansas City, MO Oct. 1993 1,964 21% 35%

Lexington, MO June 1996 10 n/a 90%

Missoula, MT (juvenile) Oct. 1996 8 n/a 100%

Las Vegas, NV (adult) Oct. 1992 2,120 51% 55%

Las Vegas, NV (juvenile) Apr. 1995 195 63% 69%

Reno, NV (family) Aug. 1994 62 69% 82%

Reno, NV (adult) July 1995 438 n/a 74%

Reno, NV (juvenile) July 1995 30 n/a 80%

Camden, NJ April 1996 80 n/a 59%

Albuquerque, NM Sept. 1995 77 n/a 62%

Las Cruces, NM

(adult-Magistrate) April 1995 86 43% 69%

Las Cruces, NM

(adult-Municipal) Dec. 1995 59 n/a 80%

Mesilla, NM April 1995 19 50% 89%

Brooklyn, NY June 1996 258 n/a 72%

Buffalo, NY Jan. 1996 168 n/a 80%

Rochester, NY Jan. 1995 617 95% 83%

Suffolk County, NY Sept. 1996 62 n/a 90%

Charlotte, NC Feb. 1995 157 45% 73%

Person/Caswell Counties, NC July 1996 25 n/a 88%

Raleigh, NC May 1996 32 n/a 66%

Warrenton, NC Dec. 1996 5 n/a 100%

Winston-Salem, NC June 1996 29 n/a 52%

Akron, OH June 1995 251 65% 75%

Butler County, OH Sept. 1996 25 n/a 80%

Cincinnati, OH March 1995 713 37% 73%

Dayton, OH (adult) Jan. 1996 57 n/a 77%

Sandusky, OH April 1996 12 n/a 92%

Guthrie, OK March 1995 40 33% 65%

Stillwater, OK (adult) March 1995 214 33% 52%

Tulsa, OK May 1996 37 n/a 92%

Eugene, OR Sept. 1994 445 20% 31%

Grants Pass, OR March 1996 65 n/a 58%

Klamath Falls, OR March 1996 35 n/a 63%

Portland, OR Aug. 1991 3,194 45% 52%

Roseburg, OR Jan. 1996 72 n/a 78%

Arecibo, PR April 1996 69 n/a 100%

(continued)

Page 59 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 3 

Approaches, Characteristics, and

Completion and Retention Rates of Existing

Drug Court Programs Were Diverse

Jurisdiction of drug court program Start date

Total

offenders

admitted

Completion

rate

Retention

rate

Carolina, PR April 1996 27 n/a 100%

Ponce, PR April 1996 107 n/a 96%

Columbia, SC Nov. 1996 12 n/a 75%

Lexington, SC July 1996 28 n/a 71%

Austin, TX Aug. 1993 618 49% 66%

Beaumont, TX March 1993 338 34% 49%

Fort Worth, TX Sept. 1995 102 n/a 76%

Salt Lake City, UT (juvenile) Oct. 1995 128 n/a 88%

Salt Lake City, UT (adult) July 1996 124 n/a 66%

Roanoke, VA Sept. 1995 109 n/a 81%

Seattle, WA Aug. 1994 512 25% 43%

Spokane, WA Jan. 1996 52 n/a 69%

Tacoma, WA Oct. 1994 209 35% 60%

Madison, WI June 1996 16 n/a 81%

Total/Average 65,921 48% 71%

Note: Completion rates (CR) were calculated by dividing the number of participants who have

completed or were favorably discharged from a drug court program (G) by the number of

participants who had been admitted (A) minus the number of participants actively (P) or inactively

(NP) enrolled in the program; that is CR = G/(A-(P+NP)). Retention rates (RR) were calculated by

dividing the sum of the graduates (G) and active participants (P) by the number of persons

admitted; that is RR = (G+P)/A. In a few of the drug court programs, the completion rate

exceeded the retention rate because of the number of persons enrolled but not actively

participating (NP). For example, for the Dade County (FL) Drug Court program, where there were

11,600 persons admitted as of the time of our review, 7,770 persons who had graduated, 670

persons who were still actively participating, and 1,200 who were still enrolled but not actively

participating, the completion rate was 80 percent (i.e., CR = (7,770/(11,600-(670+1,200))), while

the retention rate was 73 percent (i.e., RR = (7,770+670)/11,600).

n/a = The drug court program had been operating for 18 months or less at the time of our survey,

or 100 percent of the program participants reported as admitted were still active in the program.

aWe were unable to include a total for offenders admitted to this program because drug court

program officials were not able to provide an accurate account of offenders admitted to this

program between 1993 and 1994, and the status of those offenders due to a loss of data files and

an inability to accurately recreate the information.

bWe were unable to calculate a rate because drug court program officials were not able to

determine the total number of program participants who had either successfully completed, failed

to complete program requirements, and/or were inactively enrolled in their drug court program as

of December 31, 1996 (i.e., persons who did not attend or were wanted on bench warrants for

failure to appear).

cRate provided may slightly underrepresent the true rate by about 1 to 2 percent because

information provided by drug court program officials in response to our survey did not account for

the status of 27 program participants identified as admitted.

Source: GAO analysis of data on program participants obtained from survey of drug court

programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

Page 60 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

DOJ and HHS’ CSAT, which have provided over 95 percent of the federal

funding and/or support for drug court program operations, and the NADCP

Drug Court Standards Committee1 suggest that drug court programs

collect and maintain certain data on participants both during and after

their participation in the program to help manage and/or evaluate the

program. Most of the drug court programs we surveyed reported that they

collect and maintain most of the suggested types of data on program

participants during their participation. However, about two-thirds reported

that they did not collect and maintain follow-up substance abuse relapse

data on program participants after they left the program, and almost half

of these programs reported that they did not collect and maintain

follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction. Collaborative efforts among

stakeholders in the drug court community have been undertaken to study

the feasibility of and deal with obstacles associated with a recognized

need in the drug court community to collect and maintain follow-up data,

as well as other data, on drug court program participants.

DOJ, HHS’ CSAT, and

the NADCP Standards

Committee Guidelines

Suggest That Drug

Court Programs

Maintain Certain Data

on Participants

DOJ’s “Drug Court Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit” issued in

1996 require recipients of federal funds under Title V of the 1994 Violent

Crime Act to demonstrate the capability to ensure adequate program

management through ongoing monitoring, tracking, and program

evaluation. DOJ’s “Drug Court Grant Program Guidelines and Application

Kit” suggest that this be done through the design, implementation, and

maintenance of an automated data collection system. The guidelines

further suggest that the following information be collected and available

for impact evaluations on drug court program participants and, to the

extent possible, on similarly situated nonparticipants:

• criminal justice history,

• history of substance abuse,

• level of use of controlled or addictive substances at the point of entry into

the program,

• data on substance abuse relapse while in the program,

• data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime while in the program,

• completion/noncompletion of the drug court program,

1

The Drug Court Standards Committee consists of a diverse group of drug court practitioners and

other experts from across the country, brought together by NADCP through a cooperative agreement

with DOJ’s DCPO. The committee includes representatives from courts, prosecution, public defense,

treatment, pretrial services, case management, probation, court administration, and academia and

others with drug court experience, including officials from DOJ’s DCPO, NADCP, Drug Court

Clearinghouse, and JMI. Among others, HHS’ CSAT, ONDCP, BJA, and SJI provided information that

was used to assist the committee in developing its guidance.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

• follow-up data on substance abuse relapse after completing the program,

and

• follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime after completing

the program.

HHS’ CSAT, in its 1996 guidance2 addressing drug court programs, has

adopted similar suggestions for collecting and maintaining data on

program participants while in the program and, in its 1997 substance

abuse treatment planning guidance, refers to DOJ’s suggestion that drug

court programs collect and maintain follow-up drug use relapse and

criminal recidivism data. The NADCP Drug Court Standards Committee in

its recently issued drug court program guide,3

 has also adopted similar

suggestions, including suggesting that drug court programs collect and

maintain data on drug use relapse and criminal recidivism of program

participants after they leave the program.

As previously noted in chapter 1, unlike DOJ and HHS, which have provided

over 95 percent of the federal funding and/or support for drug court

program operations, NADCP has no statutory or regulatory authority over

drug court program operations.

Recipients of grants awarded under the Violent Crime Act are also

required to submit, in addition to financial reports, semiannual progress

reports that describe activities during the reporting period and the status

or accomplishment of objectives as set forth in the approved application

for funding. These progress reports are due twice a year and must be

submitted within 30 days after the end of the reporting periods, which are

June 30th and December 31st for the award period. Recipients of HHS’ CSAT

grants are also generally required to submit quarterly progress reports in

addition to required financial reports.

Similarly, recipients of grants awarded by DOJ under the Byrne formula

block grant, Comprehensive Communities, and Local Law Enforcement

Block Grants programs are required to submit semiannual progress

reports and periodic financial reports. Also, recipients of SJI funds, which

have been primarily used to study or pilot test innovative court initiatives,

such as drug court programs, are generally required to submit quarterly

progress reports in addition to required financial reports. However, no

2

Treatment Drug Courts: Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal Case Processing, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

3

Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, January 1997, supported by a grant awarded by DOJ’s

DCPO and issued in May 1997 by DOJ’s DCPO.

Page 62 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

specific requirements or suggestions exist under any of these programs for

grant recipients to demonstrate the capability to ensure adequate program

management via ongoing tracking and monitoring and program evaluation

through the collection and maintenance of specific data on drug court

program participants, as suggested for recipients of Violent Crime Act

funding. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ noted that, although

the Byrne formula block grants and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants

administered by DOJ contain an evaluation component, they do not have

the statutory authority to compel the states or local jurisdictions to collect

specific program data or to evaluate any particular program(s).

Most Drug Court

Programs Reported

They Maintain All but

Follow-Up Data on

Participants

Over 90 percent of the 134 drug court programs we surveyed that were

identified as operating as of December 31, 1996, reported that, with the

exception of follow-up data on program participants, they maintained

suggested program and participant data that enable them to manage and

evaluate their programs. Two-thirds of the drug court programs reported

not maintaining follow-up drug relapse data, and nearly half reported not

maintaining follow-up data on rearrest and/or conviction for a crime once

participants leave the programs. Our survey did not determine the reasons

why such data were not collected. However, its results showed that no

significant difference was associated with the source of funding (federal,

state/local, private, etc.) received and the extent to which drug court

programs were collecting and maintaining suggested follow-up data,

including those federally funded under the Violent Crime Act, whose

program guidance suggests that such data be collected and maintained.

Additionally, results from our survey showed small and statistically

insignificant differences in the likelihood of postprogram follow-up data

on drug use relapse and/or criminal recidivism being collected and

maintained between older and newer drug court programs.

About 94 percent of the drug court programs we surveyed reported having

a data collection system or some other means in place that can be used to

manage (monitor and track) their programs’ operations. Regarding how

drug court programs track and monitor program participants, about

19 percent of these drug court programs reported that they used a fully

computerized data collection system, about 39 percent a partially

computerized data collection system, about 15 percent some other

noncomputerized means, and about 22 percent both computerized and

noncomputerized means. The remaining 6 percent reported that they did

not have any means for monitoring and tracking data on program

Page 63 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

participants.4 About 93 percent of these programs reported that their data

collection systems and/or noncomputerized means had been used to

manage their programs.

About 70 percent of the programs operating as of December 31, 1996,

reported having a data collection system in place that can be used to

evaluate (i.e., assess/study) their programs’ operations. About 67 percent

of these programs reported that such systems had been used by internal

program officials and/or external evaluators to evaluate their programs.

Table 4.1 summarizes the programs’ responses and shows the extent to

which the data are computerized by type of data.

Table 4.1: Percentage of Drug Court

Programs That Reported Maintaining

Data on Participants

Data maintained

Percent of

programs

maintaining data

Percent of these

programs with

computerized data

Program participants

Demographic information

(e.g., age, gender,

race, income, and

education) 92 68

Criminal justice history

(i.e., arrest and/or

conviction record) 94 70

History of substance

abuse (i.e., controlled

or other addictive

substances) 90 34

Level of use of

controlled or other

addictive substances at

the point of entry into

the program 90 33

Substance abuse relapse 94 44

Rearrest and/or

conviction for a

nondrug crime 90 60

Completion/noncompletion

of the program 97 71

Follow-up data

Substance abuse relapse 33 31

Rearrest and/or

conviction for a

nondrug crime 53 65

Source: GAO survey of drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.

4

Percentages exceed 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 64 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

Feasibility Issues

Relating to the

Collection and

Maintenance of

Follow-Up Data

Collaborative efforts among stakeholders in the drug court community

have been undertaken to study the feasibility, cost, and obstacles

associated with a recognized need by the drug court community

stakeholders to collect and maintain follow-up data, as well as other data,

on drug court program participants. For example, in March 1997, DOJ,

through a cooperative agreement with JMI,

5

 sponsored a focus group

meeting involving various drug court stakeholders that focused on, among

other things, the need for follow-up data to adequately monitor and

evaluate the impact of drug court programs. During this collaborative

effort—which involved, among others, federal grantors, drug court judges,

program managers, treatment providers, researchers, and

evaluators—stakeholders discussed, among other things, (1) how

information (including follow-up relapse and recidivism data) could be

obtained to answer key questions about drug court program impacts on

participants’ behavior and life circumstances, (2) circumstances in which

it may be impossible or inappropriate to seek access to otherwise relevant

data, (3) strategies for overcoming obstacles to obtaining relevant data,

and (4) costs associated with collecting and maintaining such data. Also,

during the May 1997, NADCP training conference in Los Angeles that was

attended by about 1,500 drug court program judges, administrators,

treatment providers, planners, and other stakeholders and interested

parties, one of the nine daily sessions was devoted to data collection and

program evaluation needs. During these sessions, participants discussed,

among other things, the type of information that is needed and legal and

other issues associated with the collection and maintenance of program

data, including follow-up data on program participants’ criminal recidivism

and drug use relapse.

In addition, JMI, in doing a feasibility study to assist DOJ in its effort to

sponsor multiple evaluations of four of the oldest operating drug court

programs, concluded that it was feasible to do an evaluation focusing on

offenders who entered these programs prior to 1997. Among other things,

JMI concluded that data on new arrests and/or convictions should be

“relatively easy to obtain,” but that other outcome variables, such as drug

use relapse after a participant left the program, would be more difficult to

obtain. JMI did, however, suggest the following as possible sources of

information on postprogram substance abuse by either graduates or

persons terminated from a drug court program:

5

JMI is a nonprofit organization established in 1993. JMI provides technical assistance, education and

training, research services, and dissemination of information for courts and other justice system

agencies in the United States and abroad.

Page 65 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

• searches of criminal history records that may indicate whether an

individual was ever subsequently arrested for a charge involving

possession of a controlled substance;

• searches of probation department files that may indicate whether an

individual has had any subsequent presentence investigations or probation

violation proceedings that show evidence of substance abuse;

• state databases that may contain information on persons admitted to

treatment programs, although JMI cautions researchers that these

databases are more likely to contain information on drug use for an active

program participant and little or no postprogram data; and

• self-reported data obtained directly from former program participants.

However, JMI cautions researchers that obtaining reliable data on

substance abuse, other than data obtained through drug testing while an

individual is a participant in the program, is likely to be labor-intensive and

fraught with methodological problems that will have to be addressed

carefully. In addition, JMI notes that some criminal history data, which

should be available in electronic form for both drug court participants and

comparison group members from a combination of local, state, and the

National Crime Information Center6

 databases, should be treated with

caution. JMI reported that these records were often incomplete

(particularly with respect to conviction) and could be misleading in

assessing a program participant because it is not uncommon for a

defendant to be arrested long after admission to the drug court program

on a warrant relating to an incident that took place prior to program

participation.

HHS’ CSAT in its 1996 “Treatment Drug Courts,” guidance highlights the

importance of information sharing between the treatment program and the

criminal justice system. However, CSAT also warns that, although the flow

of information from the substance abuse treatment program to the

criminal justice system and to the researcher/evaluator is critical, those

planning or operating programs and research studies must keep in mind

that federal laws and regulations protect information about all persons

6

The National Crime Information Center is a centralized, computerized criminal justice information

system maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation consisting of a coordinated network of

federal and state criminal justice information systems that provides users with access to records on

various law enforcement matters such as wanted persons, stolen vehicles, and missing persons.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

receiving alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment services (Title

42 (Sec. 290dd-2) of the U.S. Code and 42 C.F.R. Part 2).7

DOJ DCPO is also developing a data collection instrument to collect specific

information from drug court programs receiving federal funding under the

Violent Crime Act. DOJ officials said that they intend to use the instrument

to do semiannual progress reviews of these drug court programs. A draft

of the data collection instrument intended to collect data during the

semiannual reviews included a request for information on several of the

data elements noted in table 4.1, including information on criminal

recidivism and drug relapse by program participants after they leave the

program.

As for comparative data, which we did not address in our survey of

operating drug courts, HHS’ CSAT in its 1996 guidance provides suggestions

for doing comparative program evaluations. One approach suggested by

CSAT is to develop quasi-experimental designs that allow for scientifically

rigorous examination of outcomes. One type of quasi-experimental

evaluation suggested by CSAT is a pre-post design, in which outcomes

obtained following a participant’s discharge from a drug court program are

compared to those obtained prior to participation in the program. For

example, a defendant’s frequency of drug use, frequency of arrests, or

length of time between arrests can be compared before and after

admission to the program. CSAT cautions that a drawback to pre-post

designs is that they do not take into account other factors that may

contribute to the behavior changes they measure.

7

Federal regulations prohibit disclosure of information regarding patients who have applied for or

received any alcohol or drug abuse-related services, including assessment, diagnosis, counseling,

treatment, or referral for treatment, from a covered program. Federal regulations apply only to

programs that receive federal assistance, including organizations that receive indirect forms of federal

aid such as tax-exempt status, or state or local funding coming (in whole or in part), from the federal

government.

The federal confidentiality regulations permit programs to disclose patient identifying information to

researchers, auditors, and evaluators without patient consent, providing that certain safeguards are in

place. Research that follows patients for any period of time after they leave treatment presents a

special challenge. Under federal regulations, no information that the researcher or evaluator gained

from the substance abuse treatment program with the patient’s consent or through the research, audit,

and evaluation exceptions may be disclosed to anyone else. Yet the researcher must locate the patient

to collect follow-up data. Federal regulations also prohibit making inquiries of persons associated with

a patient being followed up that reveals the fact that he or she had been in treatment. To avoid doing

so, researchers and evaluators trying to locate a patient must do so without disclosing to others any

information about the patient’s connection to substance abuse treatment, or they must obtain the

patient’s consent to do so.

Similarly, various state laws and regulations may also prohibit the disclosure of substance abuse client

information that could violate their right to privacy.

Page 67 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 4 

Except for Follow-Up Data, Most Drug

Court Programs Reported Maintaining and

Using Suggested Management and

Evaluation Data

Another type of quasi-experimental evaluation noted in CSAT’s guidance

includes studies of one or more comparison groups. Using this design,

results from an experimental and comparison group are contrasted. The

guidance suggests that comparison groups consist of similarly situated

substance abusing defendants who do not participate in (or who do not

complete) the drug court program. Suggested as useful comparison groups

are defendants placed on a drug court program waiting list, defendants

who are eligible for but elect not to participate in the drug court program,

or defendants who are discharged from the program prior to completion.

Conclusions Although the majority of the drug court programs we surveyed reported

that they were maintaining most of the data that DOJ and NADCP suggested

they maintain, nearly half of the drug court programs were not maintaining

follow-up data on criminal recidivism and two-thirds were not maintaining

data on drug use relapse. The extent to which programs were collecting

and maintaining the suggested follow-up data did not differ based on

funding source, including those funded under the Violent Crime Act,

whose program guidance suggests that such data be collected and

maintained. In addition, drug court stakeholders, led by DOJ, are beginning

to recognize and study the feasibility, costs, and legal ramifications

associated with collecting and maintaining information that is needed to

adequately manage and evaluate drug court programs, including

emphasizing the importance of having follow-up data on drug use relapse

and criminal recidivism of program participants after they leave the

program. These efforts and the results of our survey seem to indicate that

it would be feasible for a drug court program to collect criminal recidivism

data. They also indicate that, while collecting drug use relapse data may be

difficult, it too is feasible in some cases. As discussed in chapter 5, without

such data, it will be difficult for conclusions to be drawn in the future on

the overall impact of drug court programs and their effect on program

participants.

Page 68 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

The 20 evaluation studies that were available for us to review do not

permit definitive conclusions to be reached concerning the overall impact

of drug court programs or on the specific issues raised by Congress in the

Violent Crime Act and our discussions with the Senate and House

Judiciary Committees. The available studies revealed diverse programs

that varied in terms of their eligibility and completion requirements, and in

the nature, duration, and intensity of the treatment provided. Also, there

were various differences and limitations in the objectives, scopes, and

methodologies of these studies.

Partly as a result of the program differences and the differences in study

methods, the studies did not provide consistent information from which

conclusions could be drawn on the overall impact of drug courts. The

authors of these evaluation studies were generally positive in their

assessments of drug court operations and outcomes, but many of them

portrayed their results as preliminary and tentative since the drug court

programs evaluated were in many cases still in their infancy. This chapter

provides a general description of the evaluation studies we reviewed, a

summary of their principal findings, and our recommendations for

subsequent impact evaluations. Additional details of these evaluation

studies are provided in appendix III.

Description of the

Evaluation Studies

We collected and reviewed information from 20 published or unpublished

evaluation studies written between 1991 and 1997. These studies covered

16 drug court programs that began operations between 1989 and 1996.1

The studies we reviewed were primary studies we could obtain in time for

this report that included, in addition to a description of drug court

program operations, an evaluation component (i.e., some information on

the outcome or efficacy of the drug court program in preventing relapse

into drug use or criminal recidivism).2

1

One program, in Broward County, FL, was covered by three independent evaluations; and two

programs, in Dade County, FL, and Los Angeles County, CA, were covered by two evaluations.

2

In our search for these evaluation studies, we uncovered a variety of other published and unpublished

documents that described program objectives and operations, provided judicial commentary on these

programs and, in some cases, provided a summary description of a number of programs. A

bibliography of this fuller set of materials pertaining to drug courts is at the end of this report.

Page 69 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Various Factors

Prevent Drawing Firm

Conclusions

Regarding Drug Court

Impact

Based on the legislative requirements of Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime

Act and discussions with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, we

focused on determining what conclusions could be drawn from an

evaluation synthesis of the 20 studies on the impact of drug courts,

particularly in relation to the following specific issues: (1) criminal profile

of drug court program participants compared to similar offenders

processed through the traditional adjudication system, (2) completion

rates of drug court program participants, (3) differences in characteristics

between drug court program completers and noncompleters, (4) sanctions

imposed on persons who failed to complete drug court programs

compared to those similarly situated but processed through the traditional

adjudication system, (5) drug use and criminal recidivism rates3

 of

program and nonprogram participants, and (6) costs and benefits of drug

courts to the criminal justice system.

However, several factors prevent us from drawing firm conclusions about

the impact of these drug court programs. First, the programs the studies

evaluated differed considerably in several areas. Second, the studies

themselves also differed in terms of their objectives, scopes, and

methodologies. And third, the studies showed varying impacts of the drug

court programs.

Evaluation Studies

Reviewed Revealed

Diverse Programs

While all but three or four of the evaluation studies we reviewed involved

drug court programs that were voluntary, and all of the programs included

a treatment component, the programs described varied considerably in

terms of eligibility requirements, percentages of eligible offenders who

participated in and completed the programs, and the nature of the

treatment that was provided program participants. The intended length of

the various programs ranged from 5 months to 2 years, though participants

in some of the programs where completion was dependent on progress

might remain in them for shorter or longer periods. Although all of the

programs appeared to involve judicial monitoring (e.g., appearances

before the drug court judge) and drug testing, the frequency of

appearances and testing appeared to vary substantially. There was also

considerable variation in the treatment components of these programs,

which included various combinations of drug education, individual and

group therapy, acupuncture, attendance at AA, Cocaine Anonymous (CA),

3

We use the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of committing new criminal offenses after

having been arrested and/or convicted of a crime. In the evaluation studies we reviewed, this was

typically measured by rearrest. Since only a small percentage of offenses result in rearrest, rearrest

rates may underestimate the true recidivism rate.

Page 70 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

or NA meetings, educational and vocational training, and additional

support services.

Differences and

Limitations of Objectives,

Scopes, and Methodologies

of Studies

The evaluation studies we reviewed also varied considerably in their

objectives, scopes, and methodologies. All but one of the studies assessed

the effectiveness of the programs by measuring the extent of drug use

relapse and/or criminal recidivism among drug court program participants.

Ten of the 19 studies, however, investigated these outcomes while

offenders were still in the program, while the other 9 studies measured

these outcomes after participants had completed, or been terminated

from, the programs.4

 The studies that measured recidivism after program

completion varied in terms of the length of follow-up, and in terms of how

they measured recidivism; in some cases, studies described rearrests for

any offense, in other cases, felony rearrests. Some studies provided data

on rearrests for specific offenses (e.g., drug-related and violent offenses).

Twelve of the studies included information on comparison groups of drug

offenders, and the nature of the comparison group varied across studies.5

In some studies, drug court program participants were compared, over the

same period, to persons who were eligible to participate but did not, while

in other studies, participants were compared to offenders who had been

arrested for drugs or other offenses at earlier points in time, before the

drug court existed. In two studies, the equivalence of offenders in the

treatment and comparison groups was enhanced by design or by random

assignment to treatment and comparison groups. Many of the studies that

did not control for differences between groups by design also made no

attempt to statistically control such differences.

Only 6 of the 20 evaluation studies we reviewed involved a comparison

group and an assessment of how participants and nonparticipant arrest

rates compared after program completion. The use of comparison groups

is standard in evaluation research, as is the assessment of treatment

effects after program completion; such approaches may become more

common in drug court program evaluations as these programs get better

established.

4

None of the 11 evaluation studies that noted that they had received federal funding included

postprogram information on drug use relapse, and 7 of the 11 did not include information on

postprogram criminal recidivism.

5

Five of the 11 studies noting that they received federal funding did not include comparative data for

similarly situated nonparticipants.

Page 71 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

To help ensure that differences in outcomes between drug court program

participants and comparison groups are not due to selection effects, it is

also essential that programs be evaluated in terms of what proportion of

individuals eligible for the drug court programs actually participate in

them, and how greatly they differ from individuals who choose not to

participate in the programs. Differences in such characteristics must be

controlled, statistically, in any analysis of differences in outcomes. Many

of the studies that we considered did not include statistical controls.

Moreover, many of these studies only superficially considered the extent

to which program participants complied with program requirements (e.g.,

attended treatment sessions, submitted required urine tests, and attended

court hearings). To determine why some programs work better than

others, and why some program participants succeeded in avoiding relapse

and rearrest while others failed, we would have had to have more

information on the extent of treatment that different program participants

received.

Another factor that makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about

the overall impact of drug court programs, or the six issues that have been

raised about drug courts, is that it is unclear whether the 16 drug courts

evaluated in the 20 studies we reviewed represent the entire population of

drug courts now operating. Moreover, some of the studies provided only

limited information on the issues raised; on some issues, some of the

studies provided no information. Many studies, for example, said nothing

about how offenders who failed to comply with program requirements or

who were terminated from the programs were sanctioned. Most of the

studies said nothing about how program completers differed from

noncompleters and about the costs and additional benefits of the drug

court program. Table 5.1 indicates which studies provided some

information on the six questions or issues.

Page 72 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Table 5.1: Matrix of Studies Showing Which Study Provided Information on Congressional Issues

Evaluation study

Q1:

Criminal

profile

Q2:

Completion

rates

Q3:

Difference

between

program

completers

and

noncompleters

Q4:

Sanctions

imposed

Q5:

Drug use

and

rearrest

Q6:

Program

costs and

benefits

Maricopa County, AZ

(Deschenes et al., 1996) X X X X

Los Angeles County, CA

(Municipal Courts Planning and Research Unit, 1996) X X X X X

Los Angeles County, CA

(Deschenes and Torres, 1996) X X X

Oakland, CA FIRST (Tauber, 1995) X X X X X

Santa Clara County, CA (Peters, 1996) X X X

Ventura County, CA (Oberg, 1996) X X X X X

Denver, CO

(Granfield and Eby, 1997) X X X

D.C. Superior Drug Court

(Harrell and Cavanagh, 1996) X X X

Broward County , FL

(Terry, 1993; Terry, 1996) X X X

Broward County, FL

(Commission Auditor’s Office, 1995) X X X X X

Broward County, FL

(McNeece and Daly, 1993) X X X X

Dade County, FL

(Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993) X X X X

Dade County, FL

(Smith, Davis and Goretsky, 1991) X X X

Hillsborough County, FL

(McNeece and Daly, 1993) X X X

Baltimore, MD (Gottfredson, Coblentz, 

and Harmon, 1996) X X

Clark County, NV

(Choices Unlimited Las Vegas, 1996) X X X X

Multnomah County S.T.O.P., OR

(Drug Court Clearinghouse, American

University, 1994) X X X X X X

SODAT-Delaware (Reed, 1995) X X X X X

Travis County, TX (Kelly, 1996) X X a X X

Jackson County, MO

(Jameson and Peterson, 1995) X X X X

(Table notes on next page)

Page 73 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

aA subsequent report (April 1996) did provide information on completion rates based on the

ethnicity of program participants.

Source: GAO analysis of drug court evaluation studies.

Evaluation Studies

Reviewed Show Varied

Results Regarding Drug

Court Impact

Variation in the results reported in the different evaluation studies also

makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the outcomes of

these drug court programs. Drug relapse, indicated by positive drug tests,

was measured only during program participation, and different studies

revealed relapse rates that ranged from 7 percent to about 80 percent for

drug court program participants. Criminal rearrest recidivism rates ranged

from 0 percent to 58 percent for drug court program participants. While

four of the six studies that collected information on rearrests after

program completion and compared program participants or graduates

with nonparticipants showed lower rates for the former group, the other

two studies showed either no difference or small and probably

insignificant differences.

Although some of the studies were more sophisticated in their design and

more rigorous in their methods, these studies did not appear any more or

less likely than the others to indicate positive drug court outcomes. None

of the studies we reviewed indicated that drug court offenders had

significantly higher relapse and recidivism rates than offenders not

handled in drug court programs. Those studies that provided information

on the costs and benefits of these programs indicated that there were

substantial cost savings and/or additional benefits (e.g., reducing the

number of drug cases on traditional court dockets). However, none of the

programs have been thoroughly and systematically evaluated in terms of

costs and benefits, and more information would be needed on this, as well

as on the longer-term likelihoods of relapsing and recidivating, before it

can be firmly established whether these courts have diminished costs or

simply delayed them.

General Outcomes

Reported in Studies

Relating to Specific

Issues Raised About

Drug Court Programs

We are unable to provide definitive answers to the six specific issues

raised about drug courts based on information from existing evaluation

studies. However, not all drug courts have been evaluated, and the 20

studies we reviewed did not in every case provide direct information that

bears on the questions raised. Those studies that did provide information

varied in terms of how that information was provided, and how much

Page 74 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

detail they offered. As such, the information provided in the following

sections should be interpreted cautiously.

Criminal Profile of Drug

Court Program

Participants

The evaluation studies varied in terms of how much detail they provided

on the criminal profile of drug court program participants, and how similar

or different participants were from drug offenders processed through the

traditional adjudication system. However, all but one of the evaluation

studies provided information on the admissions criteria of the drug court

programs they studied. It appears that most of the programs covered in the

studies excluded violent offenders, although one evaluation of the Dade

County (FL) Drug Court program (Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993) revealed

that the program had shown some flexibility in its admissions criteria,

admitting some offenders who had prior arrests for serious crimes against

persons. Most of the programs excluded offenders involved in drug dealing

or trafficking, though the Travis County (TX) Drug Court was reported to

have excluded only individuals involved in “significant” drug dealing. In at

least one other program (Jackson County, MO, Drug Court), offenders

involved in the sale of controlled substances under specified amounts

were eligible to participate.

While many of the programs initially targeted first-time offenders with no

prior drug or felony arrests, two programs admitted offenders with either

an extensive history of arrests (D.C. Superior Drug Court) or a lengthy

history of substance abuse (Santa Clara County (CA) Drug Treatment

Court). It also appears that some of the courts that were initially quite

restrictive have modified their admission criteria to include offenders with

prior offenses or offenses that originally resulted in exclusion from the

drug court program.

While these admission criteria make it likely that drug court participants

are less serious offenders than other drug offenders who do not

participate in drug court programs, only a few of the evaluation studies

provided comparative information that directly bears on that question.

Usually, this information involved a comparison of characteristics of

offenders eligible for the drug court program who chose to participate

with offenders who chose not to participate, or who were on probation.

For example, the Baltimore City (MD) Drug Treatment Court evaluation

reported that participants were historically more frequent offenders

compared to other eligible probationers. In addition, the Ventura County

(CA) Drug Court study indicated that participants were similar,

Page 75 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

demographically and in terms of drug offenses committed, to offenders

who were not accepted into the program.

From the limited evidence provided, it appears that the characteristics of

drug court program participants and differences between them and

offenders processed in the traditional courts may vary from court to court.

Some types of offenders are ineligible for many of the drug court

programs, and in the many programs that are voluntary, some of the

eligible offenders decline to participate. While the authors of at least one

of the evaluation studies noted that drug court participants may be a very

selective group of offenders (and therefore quite different from

nonparticipants), few of the studies provided a clear indication of what

percentage of eligible offenders chose to participate. One study indicated

that most of the eligible offenders who were represented by private

attorneys opted not to participate in the drug court program.

Drug Court Program

Completion Rates

Many of the drug court programs evaluated were still in their first or

second year of operation, and many of the offenders who had been

admitted to the drug court programs were still active in them. As such, it is

difficult to assess what the completion rate of these programs will

eventually be, based on these existing evaluation studies. We do provide

information derived from our survey on the completion rates for 56 of the

62 drug court programs identified as operating, as of December 31, 1996,

for more than 18 months, in chapter 3.

Some of the evaluation studies we reviewed provided information on

completion rates for participants who had entered drug court programs a

year or more before the study was done, and enough time had lapsed for a

reasonably accurate completion rate to be calculated. For example, one of

the Broward County (FL) Drug Court studies reported a completion rate of

39 percent for the 787 persons who entered the program in its first year,

and another of the Broward County (FL) studies provided data which,

when adjustments are made for persons still active in treatment, yields a

completion rate of 35 percent over 3 years. The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T)

Drug Court Program study indicated that 54 percent of a sample of drug

court program participants admitted during 1991 had successfully

completed it.

Based on information available in existing studies, we were able to

estimate the completion rates for eight of the remaining programs that

provided data on cohorts of participants, among whom many were still

Page 76 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

active. We calculated a completion rate by deleting the currently active

participants and dividing the number who successfully completed the

program by the number who were admitted to it (and were not still

enrolled). This is consistent with the method we use in chapter 3 to

calculate completion rates for drug court programs identified as operating

as of December 31, 1996, for more than 18 months. For these programs,

completion rates varied from less than 1 percent to more than 70 percent,

and averaged about 43 percent. This calculation of the average may

underestimate eventual completion rates for the newest programs in

which most persons admitted were still enrolled. Completion rates are

likely to vary substantially across programs because some programs

appeared to be more tolerant of relapses, rearrests, and program

noncompliance than others. It is also possible that completion rates may

change over time if, for example, these programs were to modify their

eligibility criteria, as some have appeared to do after their first year or two

of operation.

Differences Between

Program Completers and

Noncompleters

Because of the newness of many of these programs and the substantial

numbers of offenders recently admitted and still active in them, it is

difficult to assess what distinguishes program completers from

noncompleters. In some of the programs, many of the noncompleters

opted out of the program after beginning it, while in others many of the

noncompleters were persons who failed to comply with program

requirements (e.g., attending treatment sessions), repeatedly relapsed

(e.g., failed drug tests), or were rearrested during their participation in the

program.

Only a few of the evaluation studies provided information on differences

between offenders who completed the programs and those who did not.

The Ventura County (CA) Drug Court Program reported that males and

Hispanics were less likely to complete the program. One of the Broward

County (FL) Drug Court studies suggested that African-Americans were

less likely than others to complete treatment, which was required for

program completion. A similar finding was reported in the

SODAT-Delaware, Inc., Drug Court Program study, which also indicated

that blacks and whites with less severe drug problems were more likely to

complete treatment and to graduate, and that program completion was

slightly higher for men and for participants who were older, better

educated, and employed. The Clark County (NV) Drug Court program

study generally indicated no differences in termination rates between

ethnic groups and between male and female participants. This same study,

Page 77 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

however, indicated that termination rates were higher for participants

entering the program under the influence or in possession of a controlled

substance, particularly cocaine and amphetamines, and that participants

40 years old and over had higher completion rates. One of the Los Angeles

County (CA) Drug Court studies also indicated that older participants

were more likely to complete the program and that married participants

had higher completion rates as well. The same effects of age and marital

status were reported in the Multnomah County (OR) S.T.O.P. Program,

which also suggested that program completers were more likely to be

residentially stable, to have a longer history of drug use, and to more

consistently attend treatment sessions. Some of these differences are

small and are likely to be statistically insignificant. Moreover,

multivariable analysis would have to be undertaken to discern whether

some of these variables had no affect when other variables were

controlled.

Program Sanctions Many of the evaluation studies we reviewed said little or nothing about

what happens to program participants who fail to comply with program

requirements and participants who were terminated from the drug court

programs. From the information that was provided in some of the studies,

it appeared that how drug court programs responded to relapse and

rearrest varied considerably across the programs, as did sanctions for

program noncompliance (e.g., failing to show for tests or treatment

sessions).

The Broward County (FL) evaluation study by McNeece and Daly

indicated that most participants who were rearrested or violated probation

were not terminated but were allowed to remain in the program unless a

nondrug offense was committed, such as assault. The evaluation study of

this same program by the Commission Auditor’s Office, however, stated

that arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or

cannabis possession, or for any felony during participation, resulted in

immediate termination. This latter study also indicated that limits had

been established with respect to the number of positive drug tests during

participation (seven) and the number of missed treatment sessions or

court appearances (three). The Santa Clara County (CA) study also

indicated that a participant could be terminated for positive drug tests,

though it did not indicate how frequently this occurred.

The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T.) Drug Court study indicated that failure to

appear at scheduled hearings could be sanctioned by incarceration for at

Page 78 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

least 1 week, after which the participant would be reinstated. Only two

reinstatements were permitted before participants were to be terminated

and had to undergo criminal proceedings. The Denver (CO) Court study

noted, without providing specific information, that a “carrot and stick”

approach is used “whereby the court uses graduated sanctions in response

to violations and grants rewards for program compliance.” The Los

Angeles County (CA) Drug Courts study by the Planning and Research

Unit also alluded to the use of “progressively severe sanctions,” which

could include incarceration, and noted that termination would result in

reinstatement of the original criminal charges and prosecution. The

evaluation of this same drug court program by Deschenes and Torres

indicated that in all four drug courts in Los Angeles County, offender

relapse did not necessarily lead to dismissal from the program.

The Baltimore City (MD) Drug Treatment Court study also noted that

incarceration was used to sanction program noncompliance, as did the

Travis County (TX) Drug Diversion Court and Maricopa County (AZ)

evaluations. The Ventura County (CA) Drug Court study indicated that

new crime charges, three positive drug test samples, and other acts of

noncompliance could result in termination and offenders being returned to

serve their sentences. The Dade County (FL) Drug Court study by

Goldkamp and Weiland indicated that “motivational jail” terms of up to 2

weeks were sometimes used to sanction offenders for program

noncompliance.

Relapse and Recidivism

Rates

Ideally, responding to issues raised by Congress and others and addressing

the efficacy of drug court programs would be more effectively determined

by following up on participants and nonparticipants (i.e., eligible offenders

who chose not to participate) for some period after they leave the program

to see if they committed new crimes or relapsed into drug use. Overall, the

evaluation studies we reviewed showed some positive results but did not

firmly establish whether drug court programs were successful in reducing

drug relapse and offender recidivism. Many of the studies involved very

short follow-up periods. Some calculated relapse and/or recidivism rates

only for program participants, and only for the period during which they

were participating in the program. Others compared rates of recidivism or

relapse for program participants and program dropouts or with offenders

whose arrests occurred prior to the inception of the program.

Drug relapse was less frequently measured in these evaluation studies than

recidivism or rearrests and was only measured (by positive drug tests)

Page 79 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

during the period of program participation. Relapse rates were sometimes

calculated by taking the percentage of offenders tested who had one or

more positive drug tests, and at other times by taking, for each group

tested, the percentages of positive tests out of all tests taken or out of all

tests scheduled. In one case, the percentage of offenders in each group

testing positive in the month before sentencing was calculated. There was

substantial variation across the studies that provided information on drug

tests; some showed that fewer than 10 percent of drug tests were positive,

or that less than 10 percent of participants tested positive, while others

showed that as many as 80 percent of the offenders tested had positive

tests.

Recidivism rates were typically calculated by taking the percentage of

offenders rearrested in a particular (and widely varying) period, but in one

or two cases by taking the mean number of arrests or bench warrants per

offender. Table 5.2 classifies each study according to whether it measured

recidivism only for program participants or for participants and a

comparison group of nonparticipants, and whether recidivism was

measured only during program participation or after.

Table 5.2: Evaluation Studies Classified According to Whether They Included Comparison Groups and When They

Measured Recidivism

Comparison group? Recidivism measured

Evaluation study Yes No During program After completion

Los Angeles County, CA

(Municipal Courts

Planning and Research

Unit, 1996)

x x

Los Angeles County, CA

(Deschenes and Torres,

1996)

x x

Broward County, FL

(McNeece and Daly,

1993)

x x

Broward County, FL

(Commission Auditors

Office, 1995)

x x

Clark County, NV

(Choices Unlimited Las

Vegas, 1996)

x x

(continued)

Page 80 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Comparison group? Recidivism measured

Evaluation study Yes No During program After completion

Multnomah County

S.T.O.P., OR,

Drug Court

Clearinghouse,

American University,

1994)

x x

SODAT-Delaware

(Reed,1995)

x x

Maricopa County, AZ

(Deschenes et al., 1996)

x x

Oakland, CA, F.I.R.S.T.

(Tauber, 1995)

x x

Santa Clara County, CA

(Peters, 1996)

x x

Ventura County, CA

(Oberg, 1996)

x x

Denver, CO 

(Granfield and Eby,

1997)

x x

D.C. Superior Drug

Court

(Harrell and Cavanagh,

1996)

x x

Broward County, FL

(Terry, 1993; Terry,

1996)

x x

Dade County, FL

(Smith, Davis, and

Goretsky, 1991)

x x

Dade County, FL

(Goldkamp and

Weiland, 1993)

x x

Baltimore, MD

(Gottfredson, Coblentz,

and Harmon, 1996)

x x

Jackson County, MO

(Jameson and

Peterson, 1995)

x x

Travis County, TX

(Kelly, 1996)

x x

Note: The Hillsborough County (FL) Court study did not measure recidivism. Program

effectiveness was measured by asking participants about the program. All participants reported

that they were satisfied, and 96 percent found the program to be effective.

Source: GAO analysis of drug court program evaluation studies.

Page 81 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Four of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing

outcomes during the program for participants, without providing

information on a comparison group of nonparticipants. The Los Angeles

County (CA) study by Deschenes and Torres found that a sample of

graduates and current participants gave high ratings to the program, and

self-reported lower rates of drug use and criminal behavior after entering

the program than before. The Broward County (FL) evaluation study by

McNeece and Daly indicated that of the roughly 1,000 offenders who

entered that program in 1992 (half of whom were still active), 11 percent

had been rearrested or incarcerated or had bench warrants issued for their

arrest, and that 52 (16 percent) of the 323 offenders tested for drugs had

tested positive on one or more occasions. The other two studies, the

SODAT-Delaware Program and the Multnomah County (OR) Program,

compared program participants or graduates with participants who had

been terminated and found that the participants or graduates had fewer

positive drug tests and/or rearrests or bench warrants issued during their

participation in the program than those terminated.

Three of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing

outcomes after the program for participants, without providing

information on a comparison group of nonparticipants. The Broward

County (FL) study by the Commission Auditor’s Office, which looked at

outcomes both during and after program completion, found that, for a

small sample of program graduates, positive drug tests declined with time

in treatment, and that, while 20 percent had been rearrested while

participating in the program, only 10 percent had been arrested after

graduating from the program. The Clark County (NV) study revealed that

only 6 percent of program graduates had been arrested on new charges

since their release, though the time at risk of rearrest for these graduates

was not clear. The Los Angeles County (CA) study by the Municipal Courts

Planning and Research Unit found that 11 percent of the program

graduates had been arrested after completing the program. Here too, it

was not clear how long they were at risk of rearrest.

Six of the studies looked at the effect of the program by assessing

outcomes during the program for participants and a comparison group of

nonparticipants. Five of the six studies measured rearrests; two of these

studies compared rearrests for participants to rearrests for offenders

eligible to participate who did not (the Santa Clara County and Ventura

County, CA, studies), and three of them made comparisons to groups of

offenders from earlier periods the Denver (CO) Drug Court study, the

Jackson County (MO) study, and the Dade County (FL) study by Smith, et

Page 82 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

al.). Four of these five studies found lower rearrest rates among

participants, while one study found no significant differences. One of

these five studies (the Santa Clara County (CA) study) also reported fewer

positive drug tests among the participants. At the time of our review, the

sixth study, involving the D.C. Superior Court, did not measure rearrests.

However, it found that participants randomly assigned to the drug court

treatment program were less likely to test positive for drugs than those in

the standard docket during the month before sentencing but more likely to

test positive than a third group of offenders randomly assigned to a

graduated sanctions docket.

The remaining six studies all employed comparison groups and considered

rearrests after program completion. Four of these studies found lower

rearrest rates for program participants or graduates than for the

comparison groups of nonparticipants, after 6 months (Baltimore City

(MD)), 12 months (Travis County (TX)), 18 months (the Dade County (FL)

report by Goldkamp and Weiland), and 3 years (the Oakland (CA)

F.I.R.S.T. study). Two of them, however, found either no difference or

small and probably insignificant differences, in one case after 12 months

(Maricopa County (AZ)), and in the other case after 25 to 37 months (the

Broward County (FL) report by Terry).

Program Costs None of these studies included a systematic cost/benefit analysis.

However, several of them indicated that the drug court programs accrued

some savings and enabled traditional courts to better handle violent and

other serious criminal offenders. Whether there are long-term savings will

depend on how many of the drug court participants end up on probation

or in prison after their participation.

One of the Broward County (FL) Drug Court studies reported that the

average treatment cost to produce program graduates ranged from $3,215

to $5,834 and compared favorably to the cost of a typical 6-month jail

sentence ($8,400). The Oakland (CA) (F.I.R.S.T.) Drug Court study

reported that, largely because of the fewer days in custody spent by

program participants, a conservative estimate of the savings to the county

over the 3-year study period would be $3.0 million. The Denver (CO) Drug

Court study estimated a savings of between $1.8 and $2.5 million per year

due to decreased presentence confinement. The SODAT-Delaware Drug

Court study reported that the cost of treating 219 drug offenders was

equivalent to keeping 8 offenders in prison for 1 year. The Ventura County

(CA) Drug Court Program, Multnomah County (OR) S.T.O.P. Program, and

Page 83 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Jackson County (MO) Drug Court Program studies also suggested there

had been cost savings due to reduced incarceration costs. The only study

that provided information on costs and did not indicate that savings

resulted from the program was the Maricopa County (AZ) First Time Drug

Offender Program study, which concluded that the cost of program

participation was roughly comparable to the cost of standard probation.

DOJ and Drug Court

Community Efforts

May Help to Provide

Some Definitive

Answers

DOJ and others in the drug court community have efforts ongoing that are

expected to address some of the factors associated with existing studies

that did not permit us to draw firm conclusions about the impact of drug

courts.

Under Section 2209, Part V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act, the Attorney

General may make arrangements for evaluations of drug court programs

that receive grant support from DOJ’s DCPO. In carrying out this authority,

DOJ’s NIJ, in April 1997, issued a solicitation to fund two to four evaluations

of four of the oldest existing drug court programs. These evaluations of

specific drug court programs are intended to incorporate many of the

elements that we have found lacking in a number of the studies we

reviewed, including data on comparison groups of nonparticipants;

follow-up data; survey data to supplement rearrest records; and data on

program implementation, compliance, completion, and costs; and study

methods that are to control statistically for differences between program

participants and offenders in the comparison groups in assessing program

outcomes.

These evaluations of specific drug court programs are intended to take

place in two phases, with each phase lasting approximately 1 year. Topics

to be discussed under phase I include criminal recidivism, descriptive,

historical, and attitudinal data. During phase I, researchers are also

expected to develop detailed design plans for answering questions in

phase II. Topics to be discussed under phase II include participant

retention in treatment, changes in participants’ life circumstances and

productivity, and cost/benefit analysis. DOJ also plans for the scope of

these evaluations to include follow-up information on drug-use relapse of

program participants after completion or termination from the program.

In addition to the NIJ studies, as previously mentioned in chapter 4, DOJ’s

DCPO is developing an instrument to collect information from Violent

Crime Act funded drug court programs to help DOJ monitor their progress

in various areas, including the collection of follow-up and other data on

Page 84 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

program participants. Furthermore, drug court community stakeholders

have recognized the need for, and are taking some action to encourage the

collection of, follow-up data for monitoring and doing future impact

evaluations of drug courts.

Conclusions A substantial number of evaluation studies of drug court programs have

been done. However, due to the newness of the programs at the time of

the evaluations; the diversity in the programs; and the differences and

limitations in the objectives, scopes, and methodologies of these studies,

we cannot draw any firm conclusions from our evaluation synthesis on the

overall impact/effectiveness of drug courts. For the same reasons, we

cannot reach firm conclusions about specific aspects of drug court

programs or specific questions about program participants. The studies we

reviewed varied in terms of the amount of information they provided and

showed varied results about the impact of drug court programs in general,

as well as with regard to the specific issues raised by Congress about

program operations and participants. Some studies showed positive

effects of the drug court programs during the period offenders

participated in them, while others showed no effects, or effects that were

mixed, and difficult to interpret. Similarly, some studies showed positive

effects for offenders after completing the programs, while others showed

no effects, or small and insignificant effects. Drug relapse was less

frequently evaluated in these studies than rearrests, and estimates of

relapse rates varied substantially. None of the studies, however, showed

any adverse effect from participation in the drug treatment program.

As we noted above, some variation in the results of these studies might be

due to the differences in how the studies were conducted. It is also

possible, however, that variation in results across different drug court

programs may result from the fact that drug court programs target

different populations, operate differently, and some are more successful in

producing positive outcomes than others. We believe that, until follow-up

data on relapse and criminal recidivism for participants and

nonparticipants are collected across a broad range of programs, it will not

be possible to respond to issues raised by Congress and others or to reach

firm conclusions about whether drug court programs work, or whether

some work better than others. With such data, and additional data on

program operations and treatment characteristics, researchers would be in

a better position to rigorously analyze how drug court program outcomes

are affected by participant and program characteristics.

Page 85 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

As discussed in chapter 4, although most drug court programs reported

that they had the capability to demonstrate adequate program

management through ongoing monitoring and tracking of program

operations and that they were maintaining most of the data DOJ, CSAT, and

the NADCP Drug Court Standards Committee suggested they maintain,

nearly half of the programs were not maintaining follow-up data on

rearrests, and about two-thirds were not maintaining data on relapse. In

addition, many of the evaluation studies we reviewed did not include

follow-up information on rearrest and none on relapse after participants

left the program, including some that were federally funded. Many of them

also lacked comparative data on similar offenders who did not participate

in the program. Without such data, it will be difficult to draw conclusions

in the future on the overall impact of drug court programs and their effect

on program participants.

We recognize the difficulties inherent in collecting follow-up data on

criminal recidivism and particularly drug relapse, as well as comparable

data on nonparticipants. Drug court program participants, and comparable

nonparticipants, may move to other jurisdictions following the completion

of the program, or after completing their sentence, and may be difficult to

follow. Neither group can be expected to volunteer for drug tests to

determine relapse after they have left the court’s purview, and arrests for

new drug offenses are fallible measures of drug relapse (since not all drug

offenses or criminal offenses generally result in arrests), just as arrests are

fallible indicators of criminal recidivism in general. Ultimately, drug court

programs may have to be quite innovative in their strategies for collecting

such data and may need to resort to sampling and surveying participants

and nonparticipants. The more that different sources of data are brought

to bear on the question of drug court efficacy, the more likely firm

conclusions can be made about those questions.

We also recognize that the need for and benefits of having data must be

balanced against the cost of collecting and maintaining it, as well as

against any logistical and legal implications, including existing statutory

limitations. Nevertheless, if meaningful impact evaluations are to be done

in the future on the growing number of drug courts, more of them must

collect and maintain data on factors affecting program operations and

outcomes, including data on participants after they leave the program.

Further, whether drug court programs are effective would be

demonstrated more definitively by following up on participants and

nonparticipants (i.e., eligible offenders who chose not to participate) for

Page 86 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

some period after they leave the program to see if they committed new

crimes or relapsed into drug use.

In addition to its planned evaluations of selected drug court programs, DOJ,

in conjunction with various stakeholders in the drug court community as

noted in chapter 4, is undertaking efforts that are expected to address

some of the factors associated with existing studies that did not enable us

to draw firm conclusions. However, the outcomes of these efforts and any

future evaluations of drug court programs may be hindered by the lack of

available follow-up data. Drug court programs currently are not required

to collect such data, and studies of drug court programs generally are not

required to assess participants’ postprogram recidivism or drug relapse or

compare participants with similar nonparticipants. Moreover, certain

statutory restrictions may limit DOJ’s authority to require drug court

programs receiving funding from formula or block grants to collect critical

follow-up data.

Recommendations To help ensure more effective management and evaluation of drug court

programs, we recommend that the Attorney General and the Secretary of

HHS

• require drug court programs funded by discretionary grants administered

by DOJ and HHS to collect and maintain follow-up data on program

participants’ criminal recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data

on drug use relapse; and

• require drug court programs funded by formula or block grants

administered by DOJ and HHS, to the extent permitted by law, to collect and

maintain follow-up data on program participants’ criminal recidivism and,

to the extent feasible, follow-up data on drug use relapse. Where no

statutory authority exists to impose such requirements, we recommend

that DOJ and HHS include in their respective grant guidelines language to

suggest that drug court programs funded by these sources similarly collect

and maintain such data.

To better ensure that conclusions about the impact of drug court programs

on participants’ criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse can be drawn,

we recommend that the Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, and the

Executive Director of SJI require that the scope of future impact

evaluations of drug court programs funded by their respective agencies

include an assessment of program participants’ postprogram criminal

Page 87 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

recidivism and drug use relapse and, whenever feasible, compare drug

court participants with similar nonparticipants.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Agencies and other organizations commenting on a draft of our report

generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations

relating to the collection and maintenance of follow-up data on program

participants and impact evaluations of these programs. However, DOJ, SJI,

and NADCP raised some concerns with our recommendations.

DOJ expressed concerns about its ability to impose mandatory

requirements on congressionally authorized entitlement grants—formula

or block grant programs. DOJ said that drug courts are among many

programs that can be funded under the BJA Byrne formula block grant and

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants programs. Although BJA requires an

evaluation component for all programs funded through formula grants and

supports these efforts through an array of policies and practices, BJA does

not have statutory authority to compel states to collect specific program

data or to evaluate any particular program or programs.

Given DOJ’s concerns about its authority, we have modified our

recommendations for data collection and maintenance to accommodate

any statutory limitations that may be associated with formula and block

grant programs. In response to DOJ’s comment relating to drug court

program evaluations, we modified our recommendation to make it clear

that we are recommending that DOJ require the scope of any evaluations of

drug court programs funded by grants administered by DOJ to include an

assessment of program participants’ postprogram drug relapse and

criminal recidivism and not that DOJ require drug court programs or states

to evaluate such outcomes.

Similarly, SJI expressed concerns about its ability to impose requirements

on programs for which it only provides short-term funding, commenting

that there are practical limitations associated with how much of the

recommended information can be collected under any SJI grant. SJI officials

noted that they have sponsored two ongoing drug court program

evaluations that are attempting to collect short-term recidivism data, but

commented that obtaining a more thorough and meaningful assessment of

recidivism and relapse data would require a much longer grant period and,

accordingly, a much larger grant than SJI resources permit.

Page 88 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

We acknowledge SJI’s efforts to collect short-term recidivism data.

However, adequately designed evaluation studies should enable longer

term recidivism and drug use relapse data to be obtained by assessing

postprogram outcomes of drug court participants who have already

completed a drug court program(s). Such an approach should better

enable evaluators receiving short-term funding to gather more long-term

research data without having to monitor or follow the progress of

currently enrolled program participants and then subsequently assessing

the outcome of the participants 12 to 24 months after completing the

program.

SJI also notes that once a grant-supported project ends, SJI can encourage

the jurisdiction operating the drug court to maintain the requisite data, but

it no longer has the authority to require it. We are not recommending that

SJI require any drug court program and/or jurisdiction funded by an SJI

grant to collect or maintain follow-up data on drug court program

participants. Rather, we recommend that SJI require that the scope of any

future impact evaluations of drug court programs that are funded by SJI

grants include postprogram data on criminal recidivism and drug use

relapse, which we deem to be critical elements to providing Congress and

other interested parties with answers to questions relating to drug court

program impact and effectiveness.

DOJ and NADCP also indicated that one of the difficulties associated with

our recommendation that evaluations of drug court programs include

follow-up data and comparison groups is the lack of ongoing technical

assistance and sufficient resources available to drug court programs to

enable them to develop the capacity for data collection and program

evaluation. NADCP stated that drug court programs and courts in general

often lack the resources, funding, and expertise to both collect and

evaluate program data and pointed out that it will be necessary either to

provide funding for professionally implemented evaluations or to assist

local jurisdictions in developing the capabilities to do them. DOJ noted that

ongoing technical assistance and guidance in the area of data collection

and evaluation are greatly needed in the drug court community and that

DOJ must address these technical assistance needs if drug court programs

are to be expected to develop the capacity for data collection and to

produce effective impact evaluations. DOJ reiterated that it has taken a

number of steps to develop the capacity for data collection and evaluation

among its drug court grantees, and DOJ stated that it will work with

Congress to increase its funding for technical assistance.

Page 89 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

Although we identified various sources of technical assistance available to

the drug court community and guidelines suggesting that certain data on

program participants be collected, maintained, and made available for

future impact evaluations, we did not systematically review and cannot

comment on the sufficiency and adequacy of technical assistance and

related resources that are currently being provided to drug court programs

or research evaluators planning to do future impact studies.

NADCP and the Drug Court Clearinghouse also commented that, while it

may be too early to reach firm conclusions, results from our survey and

evaluation synthesis in their views permit a more positive conclusion

about drug court programs than we arrive at in our report. NADCP stated

that the data from our survey, from the evaluation studies we reviewed,

and from more recent unpublished preliminary findings involving the

Maricopa County (AZ) and D.C. Superior Court drug court programs, were

consistent with a preliminary finding that drug court programs are having

a positive impact. As evidence of this, NADCP offered information on (1) the

numbers of studies, overall and among those that employed comparison

groups, that showed positive results; (2) the numbers of studies that

reported cost savings; and (3) the retention and completion rates derived

from our survey, which NADCP asserts favorably compare with other

programs in the treatment community. The Drug Court Clearinghouse

pointed out that the average retention rate for drug court program

participants, resulting from our survey of 134 operating programs, is

significantly higher than program retention rates noted for nondrug court

program participants and that the average completion rate, also coming

from our survey of these programs, is more than twice that encountered in

traditional treatment programs. The Drug Court Clearinghouse also noted

that it is important to draw on additional evaluative measures to assess

societal benefits drug court programs are achieving in addition to

reductions in recidivism and drug usage. As evidence, the Drug Court

Clearinghouse stated that over 400 drug-free babies have been reportedly

born to drug court program participants; that families have been reunified,

including situations in which former drug-using parents have regained

custody of their children; and that drug court program graduates are

required to have at least a high school diploma or general equivalency

degree certificate.

We note in this report that many of the studies we reviewed provide

positive evidence of the merits of drug court programs. We do not believe,

however, that all of these studies are equally sophisticated in their design

and methods, or that the results of these studies can be simply summed to

Page 90 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Chapter 5 

Existing Evaluations Provide Some Limited

Information but Do Not Permit Firm

Conclusions Regarding Drug Court Impact

provide firm conclusions. Many of these studies are lacking in comparison

groups, and those that include them are often lacking in necessary

statistical controls between groups compared, or lacking follow-up data.

Therefore, we continue to believe that the shortcomings associated with

many of the evaluations of drug court programs that have been done

provide good reasons for withholding final judgment on the overall

effectiveness of drug court programs and aspects of the program until

more and better data are collected and additional evaluation studies are

completed.

Page 91 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix I 

Flowchart of Two Drug Court Approaches

Judge

conducts

status

hearings

periodically

Defendant

charged

and diverted

to drug court

Judge

conducts

status

hearings

periodically

Defendant

charged, tried,

and found or 

pleads guilty

Defendant

appears

before

drug court

judge

Sentence

deferred or

pronounced -

incarcation

suspended

Defendant

tried and, if

convicted,

sentence

Judge

dismisses

charges

Charge

dismissed

or sentence

reduced

Sentence

Defendant imposed

graduates?

Arrest

Judge refers

defendant to 

treatment

program

Drug court

judge refers

defendant to

treatment

program

a a

No

Deferred prosecution Postadjudication

Yes

Defendant

graduates?

No

Yes

Page 92 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix I 

Flowchart of Two Drug Court Approaches

aJudges may reward progress and impose sanctions for noncompliance with program

requirements. Source: Drug Court Clearinghouse.

Page 93 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 94 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 95 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 96 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 97 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 98 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 99 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix II 

Survey of Drug Court Programs

Page 100 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of Drug

Court Programs

Maricopa County First

Time Drug Offender

Program (Deschenes

et al., 1996)

Program Start Date 1992.

Participant Restrictions The program was limited to first-time offenders convicted of drug

possession or use (not selling) and sentenced to 3 years of probation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) the drug

court program, which involved testing, treatment, and sanctions;

(2) standard probation with no drug testing; (3) standard probation with

random monthly drug tests; and (4) standard probation with testing

scheduled biweekly.

Participation Rate Participation was determined by random assignment. Of the 176 persons

assigned to the drug court program, only 19 (11 percent) never received

the drug court program.

Program Length Six to 12 months.

Program Costs The drug treatment court program costs were similar to the costs of

standard probation, which were estimated at $2,795 per offender per year;

the original first-time drug offender drug court cost was $2,541 per

offender per year, but under a new contract with Maricopa County Adult

Probation, it increased to $2,926 per offender per year.

Treatment Components The drug court program was designed to include status hearings before

the drug court judge every 2 months, but the judge could increase or

decrease the frequency of hearings at each hearing. It was also designed to

include at least one drug test per month, though anecdotal evidence

suggests that tests were not done on a scheduled basis, and averaged one

test every 2 months. The treatment program consisted of three phases

(orientation, stabilization, and transition) and included drug education,

social skills training, relapse prevention, and attendance at 12-step

meetings and process group meetings.

Graduation Rate At the end of 12 months, 18 percent were still active in the program;

among those not still active, 49 percent had graduated and were

discharged from the program. The primary reasons for failing to complete

Page 101 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

the program were technical violations, new arrests, bench warrants, and

absconding. Some of the offenders with technical violations or arrests may

have returned to the program later, as technical violations and arrests do

not necessarily mean they were terminated from the program.

Evaluation Our 1995 report1 described an earlier version of this evaluation, which at

that time involved a 6-month follow-up and showed no significant

differences across groups in rearrest rates and technical violations. This

evaluation shows similar differences (or lack of differences) after 12

months. Thirty-one percent of the drug court program group had been

rearrested versus 30 percent to 37 percent in the standard probation

groups. Thirty-nine percent of the drug court program group were involved

in technical violations versus 40 percent to 55 percent in the standard

probation groups. While the likelihood of at least one technical violation

did not differ across groups, the average number of technical violations for

the drug court group was lower than for the other three groups. Roughly

half of the offenders in each group involving drug tests tested positive at

least once over the 12-month period.

Assessment The design here, involving random assignment to groups that varied in

terms of testing and treatment, is quite strong. These results, especially

those involving recidivism, fail to establish strong effects of testing and

treatment. Part of the reason for this may be due to the fact that the

various programs were not always implemented as designed.

Los Angeles County

Drug Courts (Los

Angeles County

Municipal Courts

Planning and

Research Unit, 1996)

Program Start Date Los Angeles Municipal Court, May 1994; Rio Hondo Municipal Court, July

1994; Pasadena Municipal Court, May 1995; and Santa Monica Unified

Municipal and Superior Court, January 1996.

1

GGD-95-159BR.

Page 102 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Participant Restrictions The drug court program was restricted to nonviolent felony drug

offenders. Defendants charged with drug trafficking or sales, or who had

prior convictions for those offenses, were not eligible.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. No information was provided on the

percentage of eligible offenders who chose to participate.

Program Length At least 12 months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components Program participants made frequent appearances before a designated

judicial officer and were subject to random drug testing. The three-phase

treatment program included individual and group counseling, attendance

at 12-step programs such as NA, and vocational and educational guidance.

Graduation Rate Between May 1994 and June 1996, 413 offenders were admitted to the drug

court program. One hundred sixteen offenders were still in the program.

Of the remaining 297 offenders, 86 (29 percent) graduated, and the others

were terminated. Married participants and participants between the ages

of 40 and 49 were the most likely to complete the program. Information

provided in the report suggests that terminations were more frequent in

1994 than in 1995 and 1996. Dismissal from the program resulted in

reinstatement of the original criminal charges and prosecution.

Evaluation No information was provided on drug relapse, and no comparisons are

made to program nonparticipants. To describe recidivism, the report

compares the first 47 defendants who graduated from the Los Angeles

Drug Court program to a group of 47 defendants who were terminated

from the program. Five of the 47 (11 percent) graduates had been

rearrested, compared to 30 of the 47 (64 percent) offenders who were

terminated.

Assessment Comparisons of graduates and nongraduates are of limited value. This

particular comparison is difficult to assess because no information was

provided on whether the two groups were at risk of rearrest for the same

amount of time and whether rearrest was a factor in terminations.

Page 103 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Los Angeles County

Drug Courts

(Deschenes and

Torres, 1996)

Program Start Date See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

Participant Restrictions See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

Participation Rate Like the Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above), this report

notes that the program was voluntary, but provides no information on the

percentage of eligible offenders who chose to participate.

Program Length While the Los Angeles County Municipal Courts Planning and Research

Unit report on these same drug courts indicates that the program length

was 12 months, this report indicates that the treatment might have been as

short as 6 months. See Planning and Research Unit Report, 1996 (above).

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components See Planning and Research Unit report, 1996 (above).

Graduation Rate This report states that 504 offenders were admitted to the 4 Los Angeles

County drug courts between May 1994 and May 1996. It does not disclose

how many offenders were participating at the time the report was written,

nor does it allow an accurate estimate of graduation rates. It does note

that there were 64 graduates at the time the study began and that the

termination rate was relatively high. It also notes that there were a myriad

of sanctions available for program noncompliance, that sanctions were

progressive, and that all four courts seemed to be tolerant of relapse

among participants.

Evaluation This evaluation looks at a subsample of 35 individuals from among 79

current program participants and 16 graduates interviewed by the authors.

Self-reported drug use and criminal behavior were found to be

significantly higher in an unspecified number of months before entering

the program than after entering the program. Also, both graduates and

current participants gave high ratings to the drug court program.

Page 104 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Assessment The sample employed here is primarily representative of current program

participants, and the number of graduates for whom data were collected

(n = 16) is too small to generalize. The evidence provided is preliminary,

based on potentially biased self-reports, and insufficient to establish

program effectiveness.

Oakland (F.I.R.S.T.)

Drug Court (Tauber,

1995)

Program Start Date Fall 1990.

Participant Restrictions The program targeted felony drug defendants. There was no information

about whether certain offenders were excluded.

Participation Rate Participation in drug diversion was statutorily mandated for defendants in

California who were eligible. In January and February of 1991, 87 percent

of defendants referred were granted diversion.

Program Length The diversion term was 24 months, and the treatment component of the

diversion program appeared to involve roughly 5 months.

Program Costs This report states that a conservative estimate of savings to Alameda

County law enforcement agencies during the 3-year study period would be

$3,000,000. Two-thirds of this savings was accounted for by the 33,869

fewer days in custody spent by program participants. Also noted was that

the County Sheriff’s Department was able to rent unused jail cells to San

Francisco and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service at $60.80

per day.

Treatment Components The program consisted of three phases: phase 1 (3 days) involved

diversion placement, phase 2 (2 months) involved intensive evaluation and

supervision, and phase 3 (3 months) involved supervision and treatment.

During phase 2, offenders were required to attend five group probation

sessions, take three urine tests with negative results, and attend four drug

education and one AIDS class. During phase 3, offenders were required to

attend eight group probation sessions and to meet individually with the

probation officer twice, to take four urine tests with negative results, and

to participate in community counseling for 8 weeks.

Page 105 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Graduation Rate Fifty-four percent of a sample of drug court program participants admitted

during 1991 successfully completed the program and earned diversion

dismissals. The only reason indicated for program failure was failure to

appear for report hearings, which could be sanctioned by incarceration for

at least 1 week, after which the participant was reinstated. Only two

reinstatements were permitted before termination from the program.

Terminees had criminal proceedings reinstated.

Evaluation The first 110 defendants referred to the F.I.R.S.T. Diversion Program in

January and February of 1991 were compared to the first 110 defendants

referred to diversion between January and March of 1990, before the

F.I.R.S.T. Program. Relapse rates are not reported, but after 3 years the

average number of new felony arrests per defendant was 44 percent lower

for the F.I.R.S.T. Program participants (.75 per defendant versus 1.33 per

defendant), and the average number of days in custody on felony offenses

was 44 percent lower as well (44 days versus 78 days).

Assessment While the length of follow-up is considerably higher here than in most

studies, it is not clear how similar the two groups of divertees being

compared were on characteristics relevant to recidivism, and there was no

information on drug relapse.

Santa Clara County

Drug Treatment Court

(Peters, 1996)

Program Start Date September 1995.

Participant Restrictions The program included both felony and misdemeanor narcotics offenders,

and targeted offenders with a lengthy history of substance abuse and

criminal involvement, and a history of unsuccessful abuse treatment or

lack of prior treatment. Violent offenders and offenders with other

pending cases were excluded.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary; the percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Page 106 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Treatment Components Participants appeared before the treatment court team “frequently” and

were subject to drug tests on a “frequent” basis. (Specific times or

intervals are not specified.) Both residential and outpatient treatment were

provided, and treatment included counseling and therapy, educational and

vocational training, and acupuncture.

Graduation Rate This preliminary study was done 9 months after the beginning of the

program. Eighty-seven percent were still participating. No offenders had

graduated. Offenders could be terminated for positive drug tests; sanctions

for those who failed to complete the program were not specified.

Evaluation In considering rearrests, 87 treatment court participants were compared to

24 randomly selected defendants who were eligible to participate but

declined. None of the treatment court participants were rearrested after 9

months, compared to 21 percent of the comparison group. These same two

groups were compared with respect to real jail time served during the 9

months; treatment participants averaged 56 days, while the comparison

group averaged 122 days. Treatment court participants were also

compared to defendants under formal probation and in intensive

supervision, electronic monitoring supervision, and general supervision

over a 3-month period, with respect to drug relapse rates. In the treatment

group, 7 percent of drug tests were positive. Among formal probationers,

the percentage of positive drug tests ranged from 14 percent (intensive

supervision) to 28 percent (general supervision).

Assessment While these results appear promising, the small number of drug court

participants (87), the smaller number in the control group (24), and the

short time of follow-up (9 months), preclude firm conclusions about the

effect of the drug court on recidivism. Moreover, the fact that no drug

court participants had been rearrested results partly from the fact that

participants who were terminated from the program as a result of

rearrests (3 percent of participants) were excluded from the comparison.

Ventura County Drug

Court (Oberg, 1996)

Program Start Date April 1995.

Participant Restrictions Nonviolent offenders charged with a misdemeanor drug offense.

Page 107 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated. The report states that drug court

offenders were similar, demographically and in terms of drug offenses

committed, to the comparison group of offenders who applied for

entrance into the drug court program but were not accepted.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No systematic cost/benefit analysis is provided, but the study reports that

“as of April 1, 1996, participants in the program have been ordered to serve

a total of 4,981 days in custody, resulting in a savings of 4,839 days and a

tremendous cost savings in incarceration costs.” (p. 24.)2

Treatment Components Offenders appeared before the drug court judge monthly, met with

probation officers on a regular basis, and submitted to random drug tests.

The treatment phase of the program lasted about 8 months and involved

counseling and attendance at AA/NA meetings. Both residential and

outpatient treatments were employed.

Graduation Rate This report evaluated the first 8 months of a 12-month program, so none of

the offenders had graduated. Of the 75 offenders accepted into the

program between April and December 1995, 26 (35 percent) had been

terminated. Terminations resulted from new crime charges, three dirty

urine samples, and other acts of noncompliance with program guidelines.

Terminees served their sentences. Males and Hispanics were reportedly

less likely to complete the program.

Evaluation Of the 966 drug tests submitted by the 75 drug court participants during

the first 8 months of the program, 86 (9 percent) were positive. In terms of

recidivism, 9 of the 75 drug court participants (12 percent) were rearrested

during the 8-month period. By comparison, over the same period,

32 percent of a control group of offenders who had applied for but not

been accepted into the drug court program were rearrested. The report

also notes that fewer of the arrests of drug court offenders involved

drug-related offenses (58 percent versus 75 percent in the control group).

Assessment While these results are positive, they are restricted to offenders who were

still in the program and offer no information on what recidivism and

relapse looked like after program completion. Also, it is not clear whether

the drug court offenders and the control group were similar with respect

to time at risk of rearrest.

2

Page references in this appendix refer to pages in the specific evaluation study cited.

Page 108 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Denver Drug Court

(Granfield and Eby,

1997)

Program Start Date July 1994.

Participant Restrictions This report does not indicate what types of offenders were included or

excluded from the drug court program.

Participation Rate The drug court was established in response to Colorado House Bill

91-1173, which mandated that all persons convicted under the Controlled

Substances Act be evaluated for substance abuse. It appears that

participation in the drug court program was mandatory.

Program Length Twenty-four months.

Program Costs The report states that the Denver Drug Court had reduced case processing

time by more than half, and significantly reduced the amount of time

offenders spent in presentence confinement. “At an average of $60 per day

in jail, the court is saving between $360 to $840 on each drug offender.

Multiplying these individual savings by the total dollar value saved for

3,000 drug offenders brings the total savings to between $1.8 to

$2.5 million per year.” (p. 32.)

Treatment Components Treatment was individualized, based on offenders’ drug use patterns and

levels of criminal risk. Treatment varied across seven levels. Level 1

involved judicial supervision but no treatment; level 2 involved the use of

education and intense urine testing; level 3 entailed weekly outpatient

treatment and acupuncture; level 4 required intensive outpatient

treatment, including group therapy; level 5 required intensive residential

treatment; level 6 required the use of therapeutic communities; and level 7

involved intensified surveillance but no treatment. Most participants in the

program fell into the first 5 categories. Offenders appeared “frequently” in

front of the drug court judge. The frequency with which they were

required to submit to drug tests is not indicated.

Graduation Rate This report does not indicate the numbers or percentages of offenders

who graduated from the program.

Evaluation A random sample of 100 drug court defendants from December 1994 to

March 1995 was compared to two control groups, consisting of 100

Page 109 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

subjects each, from predrug court years 1992/1993 and 1993/1994.

Twenty-two percent of drug court offenders, compared to 15 percent and

14 percent of the 1992/1993 and 1993/1994 offenders, had revocations for

violations of probation after 6 months, and 58 percent of drug court

offenders, compared to 53 percent and 58 percent of the 1992/1993 and

1993/1994 offenders, were rearrested in 12 months. None of these

differences were statistically significant.

Assessment Data for the evaluation were for participants who had not had time to

complete the program, and the short follow-up time precluded firm

conclusions.

D.C. Superior Court

Drug Intervention

Program (Harrell and

Cavanagh, 1996)

Program Start Date 1992.

Participant Restrictions Drug felony defendants, some of whom had an extensive history of arrests

and convictions and faced high risks of incarceration if convicted, were

randomly assigned to one of three dockets: (1) the treatment docket,

which included regular drug testing, judicial monitoring of drug use, and

“intensive day treatment”; (2) the sanctions docket, which included drug

testing, judicial monitoring of drug use, and referrals to treatment; and

(3) the standard docket, which included drug testing and judicial

monitoring. The report offers no information about whether violent

offenders, or other types of offenders, were excluded from the program.

Participation Rate Participation in the treatment and sanctions dockets was voluntary. Of

offenders who were sentenced before October 15, 1996, 37 percent of

eligible offenders chose to participate in the treatment docket, and

75 percent chose to participate in the sanctions docket. Participants in the

sanctions docket were older than participants in the treatment docket and

the standard docket. Participants in the treatment docket were less likely

to be male and employed than nonparticipants; participants in the

sanctions docket were more likely to be older, unemployed, and stronger

drug users than nonparticipants.

Page 110 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Program Length The six-stage treatment program for offenders in the treatment docket

lasted at least 6 months, depending on the speed with which offenders met

the criteria for progressing to the next stage. On average, offenders in the

sanctions docket were in the program for 5 months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components Offenders in the sanctions and standard dockets were tested for drugs

twice weekly, and those in the treatment docket were tested three times

weekly. All dockets involved judicial monitoring, but how often offenders

appeared before the judge is not indicated. The daily treatment for all

treatment docket participants included acupuncture, structured treatment

activities, and additional support services. Thirty percent of the offenders

in the sanctions docket were referred to community-based treatment,

though the nature of the treatment they received is not described.

Seventy-four percent of the sanctions docket offenders were sanctioned

during their participation; 71 percent spent 3 days in the jury box,

44 percent spent 3 days in jail, 30 percent were sent to detoxification, and

14 percent spent a week or longer in jail.

Graduation Rate Nineteen percent of the 88 offenders who entered the treatment docket

graduated from it. The large majority of the offenders who did not

complete the program were rearrested, discharged for lack of progress, or

dropped out. Sixty-five percent of the 194 sanctions docket program

participants remained in the program until sentencing. Terminees were

either doing poorly in the program or rearrested.

Evaluation The program was a pretrial program, which was evaluated in terms of the

likelihood of offenders assigned to the three dockets testing clean in the

month before sentencing. Twenty percent of the defendants assigned to

the treatment docket, 32 percent of the defendants assigned to the

sanctions docket, and 13 percent of the defendants assigned to the

standard docket tested clean. Multivariate analysis reveals that sanctions

program participants were four times as likely to test clean in the month

before sentencing as standard program participants, while treatment

program participants were twice as likely. Differences between offenders

who chose not to participate in the treatment and sanctions dockets and

those participating in the standard docket were not significant.

Assessment While the multivariate analysis undertaken here is as sophisticated as any

we uncovered, the outcome is restricted to relapse in 1 month, and does

not take into account whether program participants graduated from the

Page 111 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

programs they were participating in. The authors note too that the

apparent positive effect of sanctions may entirely disappear once

defendants are not facing sentencing.

Broward County Drug

Court (Terry, 1993;

Terry, 1996)

Program Start Date July 1991.

Participant Restrictions The program targeted first-time offenders arrested for possession or

purchase of cocaine. It excluded violent offenders, offenders involved in

drug trafficking, and offenders with prior drug or felony arrests, or prior

felony arrests or convictions that resulted in (a) disposition by

adjudication and sentence, (b) probation, or (c) participation in pretrial

intervention. It also excluded offenders with prior felony charges who had

appeals pending at the time of their current arrest.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate was not indicated. The average age of program

participants was slightly higher than for all persons arrested for drug

offenses in the county, and participants were somewhat more likely than

all persons arrested for drugs to be female and white.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components The treatment program consisted of three phases (phase I = 3 weeks,

phase II = 23 weeks, phase III = 26 weeks), which varied in terms of

treatment type and intensity. Offenders appeared at probation monthly

and submitted to urine tests five times per week during phase I and three

times per week during phase II. Treatment included group and individual

therapy, fellowship meetings, and acupuncture.

Graduation Rate Seven hundred eighty-seven persons entered the program in its first year;

307 (39 percent) graduated. Many offenders failed to complete the

program because the cases against them were dropped, they were

transferred to other districts, they requested trials or regular probation, or

they no longer met eligibility criteria. No clear information is provided on

Page 112 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

how many offenders failed to complete the program due to program

noncompliance, nor whether they faced sanctions. The report notes,

however, that almost two-thirds of the program noncompleters left

because the state attorney decided to drop the case against them.

Evaluation The evaluation compares rearrest rates for persons who were admitted to

and graduated from the program in its first year and to persons who met

the eligibility requirements of the program but did not participate. After 25

to 37 months since entering the program, 39 percent of the persons

admitted, 25 percent of the graduates, and 30 percent of the

nonparticipants had been rearrested for a new felony. Fifty percent of the

persons admitted, 48 percent of the graduates, and 43 percent of the

nonparticipants had been rearrested for a new felony or misdemeanor.

Some differences in the types of offenses committed were found, with

treatment graduates being somewhat less likely than nonparticipants to be

rearrested for new drug offenses and violent offenses. There were also

some differences in the timing of arrests between groups.

Assessment There is no systematic evaluation of treatment effects in terms of drug

relapse in this study, though the 1993 report indicated that 79 percent of

the persons who graduated from the program or were still active in it had

at least one positive cocaine test. The lack of significance tests and

possibility of selection bias in the report makes it difficult to evaluate the

rearrest differences presented.

Broward County Drug

Court (Commission

Auditor’s Office, 1995)

Program Start Date See Terry, 1996 (above).

Participant Restrictions See Terry, 1996 (above).

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate during the 3 years (July 1, 1991, through

September 30, 1994) covered by this report is not clearly indicated, but it

appears that as many as 27 percent of offenders may have declined

treatment.

Program Length See Terry, 1996 (above).

Page 113 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Program Costs This report indicates that the cost to complete the 12-month drug court

program ranged from $3,215 to $5,834 (with the treatment portion of this

cost ranging from $247 to $449 per month). The report’s authors offered,

as a point of reference, the cost of a 6-month jail sentence, which was

$8,400.

Treatment Components See Terry, 1996 (above). This report states that the extent of treatment

may have been overstated due to the ongoing failure of defendants to

attend treatment, though this finding appears to be based on a very small

sample of defendants.

Graduation Rate Adjusting for the defendants remaining in treatment, this report indicates a

35-percent graduation rate over the 3 years, which is similar to Terry’s

estimate for the first year (see Terry, 1996, above). Contrary to McNeece

and Daly, however, this report states that arrests for driving under the

influence, cannabis possession, or any felony while participating in the

program resulted in immediate termination.

Evaluation This report provides information on rearrests for a random sample of 30

drug court graduates who had graduated between 4 and 25 months before

the arrest search. Six of the 30 (20 percent) were rearrested during the

program and 3 of the 30 (10 percent) were arrested after graduation. This

report also shows, for a sample of 29 drug court graduates and similarly

small samples of probation and nonprobation drug court participants, that

positive drug tests declined with time in treatment. No comparisons were

made to nonparticipants.

Assessment Small samples and the lack of comparison data make these results difficult

to assess.

Broward County Drug

Court (McNeece and

Daly, 1993)

Program Start Date See Terry, 1996 (above).

Participant Restrictions See Terry, 1996 (above). This report states that at some point eligibility

requirements were modified to include drug offenders involved in drugs

other than cocaine (such as possession of marijuana and barbiturates),

and those with previous felony drug convictions.

Page 114 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate during the year of operation described by this report

(1992) is not indicated, but the report notes as a disturbing trend that

almost all clients with private attorneys chose not to participate. It also

notes that many clients requested transfers to other courts, where they

were almost certain to receive probation with no treatment.

Program Length See Terry, 1996 (above).

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components See Terry, 1996 (above). This report indicates that during Phase III of

treatment, urine tests were performed once a week and that treatment

during this phase emphasized educational and work skills. Vocational

evaluation, on-the-job training, and job skills and readiness classes were

also provided.

Graduation Rate This report notes that of the 1,008 defendants who appeared in this drug

court in 1992, only 48 (or 5 percent) graduated. This figure greatly

underestimates the graduation rate, however, as roughly half the

participants entering in that year were still active, and about a third were

either not accepted or were transferred to other courts. While rearrests

appeared to be responsible for some portion of terminations, the report

notes that, in most cases, rearrests did not lead to dismissal from the

program. The report notes that African-Americans were less likely than

others to complete treatment.

Evaluation This report provides information on rearrests for the 1,008 offenders who

appeared in the court in 1992, but is not clear about how long they had

been at risk of rearrest. (Since half were still active, we can assume that

for many offenders the time at risk was less than 1 year.) Eleven percent

were rearrested, jailed, sent to prison, or had warrants issued for their

arrest. Eleven percent also had one or more violations of probation while

in the program. Drug test results were available for only 323 of the 1,008

participants; 52 (16 percent) were “dirty” on one or more occasions.

Assessment This information does not distinguish graduates from program terminees

in assessing rearrests and relapse, nor does it compare program

participants with nonparticipants. Also, the length of follow-up was short,

and for some participants involved only a matter of months.

Page 115 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Dade County Drug

Court (Goldkamp and

Weiland, 1993)

Program Start Date 1989.

Participant Restrictions The drug court was initially designed to accept offenders charged with

third-degree felony drug possession who had no prior convictions, but has

shown some flexibility in its admissions criteria. This study focuses on a

sample of offenders (n = 326) admitted in August and September 1990.

Among them, one-third had prior felony arrests, and 11 percent had prior

arrests for serious crimes against persons.

Participation Rate Participation appeared to be voluntary. The percentage of eligible

offenders who chose to participate is not clearly indicated. It appears that

the drug court participants were more likely than eligible offenders who

chose not to participate to be male and to have fewer prior arrests,

including drug arrests.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components Judicial monitoring and drug tests were components of the program,

which proceeded through three phases: phase 1 (detoxification), phase 2

(counseling), and phase 3 (educational/vocational assessment). On

average, participants took 24 drug tests while in the program; how

frequently they appeared before the drug court judge is not indicated.

Acupuncture was used on a voluntary basis.

Graduation Rate Of the 326 offenders in the study group, 28 percent were still active after

18 months, and 14 percent had their charges dropped or were transferred

out of the program. Of the remaining 189, 110 (or 58 percent) graduated or

successfully completed diversion. The report states that “motivational jail”

terms of 2 weeks were sometimes used to sanction offenders who failed to

comply or were rearrested. Roughly half of the drug court defendants

failed to appear in drug court at least once, compared to from 6 to

10 percent of other felony offenders who were not assigned to the drug

court program.

Page 116 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Evaluation The 326 offenders admitted to the drug court program were compared to

four other samples: (1) felony drug defendants in the same period who

were not eligible for the program because of more serious offenses (n =

199), (2) nondrug felony defendants in the same period (n = 185),

(3) felony drug defendants from a period several years earlier (n = 302),

and (4) felony nondrug defendants from a period several years earlier (n =

536). Data were collected from a fifth comparison sample of offenders

who were assigned to the drug court but did not participate. These data,

however, were not employed in the evaluation involving rearrests. After 18

months, drug court defendants had a significantly lower rearrest rate than

the other 4 groups (33 percent versus 40 percent to 53 percent), and a

significantly longer period before rearrest (median of 235 days versus 52 to

115 days for the other groups).

Assessment These results are quite positive but, as we stated in our previous report,

must be viewed with caution as a result of a lack of comparability between

groups, especially in terms of offense seriousness and criminal history.

Dade County Drug

Court (Smith, Davis,

and Goretsky, 1991)

Program Start Date June 19, 1989.

Participant Restrictions See Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993. This report notes that eligible offenders

had to admit to having a drug problem for which they wanted treatment.

The report also notes that eligibility requirements were relaxed over time.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. This report does not indicate what percentage

of eligible offenders chose to participate. It does note that of 1,100 cases

that had been referred to the drug court, 300 were transferred out, 200

were nollied, 100 resulted in bench warrants, 100 were prosecuted in some

other way, and 411 (or 15 percent) “received the ’drug court’ stamp. Thus,

those who made it to the drug court are a very select group.” (p. 5.)

Program Length This report states that while a 12-month program was envisioned, the

length of time it took an offender to complete it varied, depending on the

individual’s progress.

Page 117 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Program Costs No systematic cost/benefit analysis is provided. The report states that the

drug court treatment program cost $700 per year compared with the

$17,000 cost of housing inmates in the local jail, and that the county paid

the cost of treatment.

Treatment Components See Goldkamp and Weiland, 1993. This report notes that in general,

offenders appeared before the drug court judge every 30 to 60 days. It also

indicates that individual and group counseling, and attendance at AA/NA

meetings, were frequently employed.

Graduation Rate No information was provided on the percentage of offenders who

completed the drug court program.

Evaluation The evaluation involves a comparison of rearrest rates for persons

assigned to the drug court in January 1990 through March 1990 (n = 318),

and a subgroup of persons assigned to the drug court who actually

participated in it (n = 148), with a sample of predrug court narcotics cases

from early 1988 (n = 99). Persons assigned to the drug court were similar

to predrug court offenders with respect to rearrests (32 percent versus

33 percent), while the participants had lower rearrest rates (15 percent).

Assessment The authors note that the differences between drug court participants and

predrug court cases should be viewed cautiously, due to the selective

nature of the latter group.

Hillsborough County

Drug Court (McNeece

and Daly, 1993)

Program Start Date June 1992.

Participant Restrictions The program was targeted for first-time offenders charged with simple

possession or purchase of cocaine. The report states, however, that in

actual practice offenders charged with other types of drug offenses and

who had previous records could be considered.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary, but the percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated. The report states, however, that

self-selection could have been at work, as African-Americans were

underrepresented among program participants. While they accounted for

Page 118 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

54 percent of all drug arrests, they comprised only 33 percent of drug

court participants.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components The frequency with which participants appeared before the drug court

judges varied, depending on progress and ranged from once every 2 to 4

weeks to once every 2 or 3 months. The treatment program consisted of

three phases. During phase 1 (first 3 weeks), random urine tests were done

three times a week, and treatment consisted of acupuncture and individual

and group counseling. During phase 2 (weeks 4 through 12), random urine

tests were done twice a week, participants received acupuncture and

attended group therapy sessions, and were encouraged to attend AA/NA

meetings. During phase 3 (weeks 13 through 52), random urine tests were

done three times a month, and participants were required to participate in

a structured aftercare support group, encouraged to attend AA/NA

meetings, and given individual counseling as needed.

Graduation Rate The report states that as of November 1993, only 23 participants had been

discharged from the program (thus implying that all but those 23

participants were still active in the program). Twelve (52 percent) were

discharged as successful. The 11 terminees were discharged due to new

drug arrests (2), new nondrug felony arrests (2), or persistent

noncompliance (7).

Evaluation The program had not been formally evaluated, but the report states that it

had been selected for a longitudinal study to track relapse and recidivism

among participants over a period of several years. The only evaluation

provided here involves responses from a random sample of program

participants interviewed, the size of which is not indicated. Sixty-three

percent and 37 percent reported being very satisfied or pretty satisfied

with the program (only one participant was dissatisfied), and 70 percent

and 26 percent found it to be very or somewhat effective.

Assessment The lack of systematic information on what percentage of offenders

eligible for the program entered it, the very preliminary information on the

percentage who successfully completed it, and the absence of information

on relapse and rearrests after program completion for participants and a

comparison group makes it impossible to determine the efficacy of the

Page 119 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

program. It is not indicated whether the planned longitudinal study was to

include a comparison group of nonparticipants.

Baltimore City Drug

Treatment Court

(Gottfredson,

Coblentz, and

Harmon, 1996)

Program Start Date March 1994.

Participant Restrictions The program was targeted toward nonviolent offenders with drug abuse

problems. The “instant” offenses that led to assignment to drug court were

most often drug-related or property crimes.

Participation Rate It appears that participation was voluntary for some offenders but not for

others. Offenders were diverted from prosecution contingent upon an

agreement to participate in a drug treatment program. Others who were

not deemed eligible for diversion from prosecution were required to

participate in a drug treatment program as a condition of parole or

probation. The percentage of eligible offenders who entered the drug court

treatment program is not indicated. The report notes that drug court

clients were historically frequent offenders compared to other eligible

probationers and that the offenses for which they were convicted were as

serious or more serious in nature than those in the comparison group.

Program Length Not indicated.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components The report states that intensive supervision and frequent drug testing were

used but does not provide specific information on frequency of contacts

with the courts or drug tests. The program services (treatment) may have

included education, unspecified substance abuse treatment, job readiness

and placement, life skills training, and housing assistance. Graduated

sanctions and incarceration were used to induce program compliance.

Page 120 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Graduation Rate The program completion rate is not indicated. Incarceration could be

imposed when offenders failed to comply with program requirements. The

nature and extent of sanctions were not examined.

Evaluation To determine whether the drug court program services were more

effective than those provided under traditional probation and parole, 145

offenders who were assigned to the drug court treatment in its first year of

operation were compared to offenders not assigned. Rearrests after 180

days were compared, separately for offenders from (1) the district court (n

= 84 in the treatment group and 351 in the control group), (2) the circuit

court (n = 34 in the treatment group and 125 in the control group), and

(3) the district court for violations of probation (n = 27 in the treatment

group and 53 in the control group). Twenty-three percent, 26 percent, and

18 percent of the district, circuit, and violations of probation treatment

cases were rearrested, respectively, compared to 27 percent, 30 percent,

and 30 percent of controls. While none of these differences were

statistically significant, a significantly lower rearrest rate among drug

court cases emerged when other factors affecting rearrests (i.e., criminal

history, characteristics of the instant offense, and demographic variables)

were statistically controlled.

Assessment These preliminary results appear positive, but firmer conclusions await a

lengthier follow-up with a more diverse group of treatment court

participants, including those who enter through the diversion track.

Clark County Drug

Court (Choices

Unlimited Las Vegas,

1996)

Program Start Date October 1992.

Participant Restrictions Initially, most participants were offenders charged with possession of a

controlled substance or under the influence of a controlled substance,

who had no prior felony convictions and no noncriteria offense currently

in the system. Persons who wished to participate but did not meet

admissions criteria could be allowed to conditionally participate. Such

persons might not receive a dismissal of underlying criminal charges and

might be required to pay treatment costs. It appears that many participants

Page 121 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

in the most recent year covered by the report (1995-1996) were charged

with possession with intent to sell, low-level trafficking, and

nondrug-related property offenses such as burglary. The report is unclear

about whether violent offenders were excluded as well.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components Participants appeared in the drug court frequently—between weekly and

monthly—depending on progress. Urine tests were taken every other day

in the first phase of the program, and periodically in phases 2 through 4.

Participants could not proceed from phase 1 to 2 or from phase 2 to 3 until

they had five consecutive negative tests, could not proceed from phase 3

to phase 4 until they had 6 months of negative tests, and had to test clean

for a minimum of 3 months to graduate. Treatment components varied by

phase and included detoxification; individual, group, and family

counseling; wellness education sessions; and job training.

Graduation Rate As of April 1, 1996, 1,544 offenders had been referred to the program.

Seventy-eight offenders never actually started treatment, and 795

offenders were still active in the program. Of the remaining 671 offenders,

382 (57 percent) had graduated. Reasons for termination included new

arrests, positive urine tests, and noncompliance with program

requirements. Similar termination rates among ethnic groups and between

male and female participants were reported. However, termination rates

were higher for participants entering the program under the influence or in

possession of a controlled substance offense, particularly cocaine and

amphetamine. The report does not indicate what happened to program

terminees.

Evaluation The only evaluation component of the report involved a calculation of

rearrests among the 382 graduates over the 42 months of the court’s

operation. Only 24 (6 percent) of the graduates had been rearrested on

new charges since their release.

Assessment While the absence of a control group makes the rearrest information

difficult to interpret, the 6-percent recidivism rate seems remarkable,

especially since many graduates would have had substantial periods at

Page 122 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

risk of rearrest. It is not clear whether these figures included arrests

during program participation, or whether such arrests automatically

triggered termination.

Multnomah County

S.T.O.P. Program

(American University

Courts Technical

Assistance Project,

1994)

Program Start Date August 1991.

Participant Restrictions The S.T.O.P. (Sanction-Treatment-Opportunity-Progress) program was

targeted for defendants charged with felony drug possession offenses with

no involvement in significant drug dealing, no holds from other

jurisdictions, no other felony or Class A person misdemeanor charges

pending, and no driving under the influence charges in the same charging

instrument. A defendant’s criminal history was no barrier to participation

provided other qualification criteria were met. Since the program was first

implemented, criminal history requirements were relaxed and gang

affiliation was abandoned as a restriction on program participation. The

report indicates that because of the relaxed eligibility criteria and

Oregon’s relatively lenient sentencing provisions, the drug court handled a

significantly larger percentage (26 percent) of the total drug caseload than

most courts. “Drug courts programs in other jurisdictions generally

account for less than five percent of their jurisdiction’s total drug

caseload.”

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary, but the percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs While the report states that “costs per case for STOP cases . . . have been

substantially reduced compared with the costs per cases handled in the

traditional adjudication process,” dollar values were left blank in the draft

of the report we reviewed.

Page 123 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Treatment Components S.T.O.P. program participants appeared before the program judge monthly

during this four-phase program. In phase 1 (4 weeks), they submitted six

drug tests per week and received acupuncture and drug education classes.

During phase 2 (4-1/2 months), they submitted to random drug tests,

acupuncture, and group counseling three times a week. In phase 3

(approximately 6 months), they submitted to random drug tests and

counseling tailored to their needs. Phase 4, added in the program’s second

year, involved biweekly urine tests and participation in AA/NA meetings five

times a week for 2 months.

Graduation Rate Between August 1, 1991, and June 9, 1994, 1,611 defendants were admitted

to the program. Seven hundred three were still active, and of the

remaining 908, 367 (or 40 percent) had graduated. There is no indication of

what factors were primarily responsible for failure to complete the

program (i.e., rearrests, positive urine tests, etc.), though it is noted that,

on average, program completers had longer histories of drug use and were

older, more likely to be married and residentially stable, and more likely to

have consistently attended acupuncture and other treatment sessions.

Program completers had their criminal indictments dismissed, while

terminees stood for trial before the S.T.O.P. program judge at the same

status hearing in which the termination occurred. Failures to appear were

sanctioned by program suspensions, appearances before the court, and

bench warrants.

Evaluation The evaluation provided is very preliminary, and it appears that many of

the numbers provided were in need of updating or verification. The

information provided involves a comparison of 105 S.T.O.P. participants

who had graduated from the program and 78 participants who had been

terminated, and is restricted to numbers and percents in the two groups

who had positive drug tests and bench warrants. It appears that, in each of

the four phases of the program, graduates were more likely than terminees

to show for drug tests, and in at least the second and third phases, less

likely to test positive (i.e., dirty). There was also a smaller average number

of bench warrants issued for program graduates (0.73) than terminees

(2.15).

Assessment These results are preliminary. It is not clear why the evaluation done

involved only 105 of the 367 graduates, and only 78 of the 542 terminees. It

appears that the urine tests and bench warrants were considered only for

the period of their participation in the program, so these figures provide

no information on long-term effects. The study also provides no

information on nonparticipants.

Page 124 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Sodat-Delaware, Inc.

Drug Court Diversion

Program (Reed, 1995)

Program Start Date April 1994.

Participant Restrictions Participants were first-time drug offenders with no prior drug convictions.

Offenders who were excluded are not indicated, except for repeat drug

offenders.

Participation Rate Not indicated.

Program Length Five to 6 months.

Program Costs The only information on cost savings from the program was the statement

that “For the cost of keeping just 8 offenders in prison for 1 year, SODAT

has successfully diverted and treated 219 drug offenders in the community

and started them on the road to recovery from their addictions.”

Treatment Components Participants appeared before the drug court judge, usually once a month,

and were required to submit to random urine screening throughout their

stay in the program. Treatment was not well described—“three counselors

provide active substance abuse counseling.” (p. 1.)

Graduation Rate After 1 year, 71 percent (90 of 127) of the program participants who were

not still active in the program and had not been transferred to more

intensive treatment had graduated. Men had slightly higher graduation

rates than women, and whites and blacks with less severe drug problems

had higher completion rates. The report also states that age, education,

and employment were related to program success.

Evaluation Approximately 80 percent of program participants had been drug tested

during the program, and roughly half of those tested had one or more

positive urines. Program graduates were less likely than nongraduates to

have one or more positive urines (35 percent versus 80 percent). Only

4 percent of program participants, and 8 percent of participants not still

active in the program, had been discharged due to rearrests. Participants

were not compared to offenders who did not participate in the program.

Assessment This program was just 1 year old at the time of this report, and the few

details offered about program effects do not permit firm conclusions.

Page 125 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Travis County Drug

Diversion Court

(Kelly, 1996)

Program Start Date August 1993.

Participant Restrictions The Travis County SHORT (System of Healthy Options for Release and

Treatment) Program was modeled after the Dade County Drug Diversion

Program and targeted drug offenders who exhibited evidence of addiction

and had a limited criminal history. It excluded offenders who were

involved in significant drug dealing, had holds from other jurisdictions,

had prior felony convictions for violent crimes, or had other felony

charges pending.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The report notes that a significant number of

eligible defendants either refused entrance or failed to participate from the

outset. No information was provided on the percentage of eligible

offenders who chose to participate.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs No information was provided.

Treatment Components While the report indicates that court appearances and urine testing were

components of the program, it does not indicate how frequently either

occurred. The treatment program consisted of three phases, which varied

in terms of intensity of supervision and treatment. Treatment components

included counseling, acupuncture, and AA/NA and drug education meetings.

Graduation Rate Four hundred fifty-five defendants had entered the program since its

inception; 232 were still active, and of the remaining 223, 74 (or

33 percent) had graduated. The primary reasons stated for not completing

the program were failure to appear, requesting to withdraw and have their

case indicted, failure to comply with the program, and rearrests. The

report states that noncompliance (including positive urine tests, missed

meetings and court appearances, and rearrest), was tolerated in an effort

to retain program participants. Noncompliance was sanctioned in a variety

of ways, including by increasing urine tests, court appearances, and jail

time.

Page 126 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Evaluation The evaluation involves only information on rearrests, for a small sample

of 22 program graduates and a sample of 27 individuals who were arrested

before the program was established but would have been eligible for it.

After 1 year, 6 of the 22 program participants (27 percent) had been

rearrested, compared to 16 of the 27 individuals (59 percent) in the

comparison group.

Assessment These preliminary results are positive, though the authors note problems

in the comparability of the two groups, in the small sample sizes, and in

the short period of follow-up.

Jackson County Drug

Court Diversion

Program (Jameson

and Peterson, 1995)

Program Start Date October 1993.

Participant Restrictions The report states that individuals charged with possession of drugs or drug

paraphernalia, sale of controlled substances (under specified amounts),

fraudulent prescriptions, and prostitution were presumed to be drug users

and eligible to participate. Other offenders were eligible if they and/or

their family, friends, or attorney stated that they were a drug user or tested

positive for drugs at the time of arrest. Relative to persons admitted to the

Jackson County Department of Corrections, the program may have been

overrepresentative of blacks and females.

Participation Rate Participation was voluntary. The percentage of eligible offenders who

chose to participate is not indicated.

Program Length Twelve months.

Program Costs While no formal cost/benefit analysis is provided, the report states that, “if

it assumed that the 257 active clients would otherwise have been

incarcerated for 21 days . . . the savings to the county may be estimated to

be approximately 5,400 inmate days at a minimum cost savings of

$246,000.”

Page 127 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix III 

Outcomes Reported in and GAO’s

Assessment of Available Evaluations of

Drug Court Programs

Treatment Components This was a three-phase program. Phase 1 (3 weeks) involved assessment.

Phase 2 (14 weeks) included acupuncture; individual, group, and family

counseling; and attendance at AA/NA/CA meetings. Finally, phase 3 (36

weeks) included reduced treatment and continued meeting requirements.

Judicial monitoring and drug testing were included throughout;

participants met with the drug court judge monthly and submitted urine

tests twice weekly during phase 2. (Frequencies are not given for the other

phases.) The report notes that compliance rates (the percentage of

appointments made that were kept) varied by program components, from

34 percent for 12-step meetings to 49 percent for acupuncture to

81 percent for diversion management sessions.

Graduation Rate Of the 450 offenders processed in the first year of operation of this

12-month program, 257 were still active. Of the remaining 193 cases, only 1

(0.5 percent) had graduated from the program. The majority of

participants terminated were for noncompliance with program

requirements (52 percent); 19 percent opted out of the program after

beginning it and took their cases through the traditional criminal

processing procedures.

Evaluation Negative (clean) urine test rates were indicated for program participants

and shown to vary by phase; phase 1 (22 percent), phase 2 (53 percent),

and phase 3 (81 percent). Rearrest rates for the 450 program participants

were compared to rearrest rates for a group of 4,755 offenders admitted to

the Jackson County Department of Corrections between 1991 and 1994

who had comparable eligibility and were at risk of rearrest. Four percent

of the program participants versus 13 percent of the comparison group

were rearrested after roughly 6 months.

Assessment It is unclear whether urine test rates refer to the percentage of negative

tests or the percentage of participants with negative tests. It is also unclear

whether program participants were included among the comparison

group, which would diminish slightly the difference in rearrests between

groups. It is not clear how many of the program participants rearrested

were still in the program at the time of their rearrest, and it is too early to

tell how different program completers would be from noncompleters and

eligible nonparticipants in the long-term.

Page 128 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Alabama

Atmore

(juvenile/Creek

tribe)

• •

Birmingham

(adult)

01/96 • • • •

Birmingham

(juvenile)

01/96 • • •

Cullman • •

Mobile 02/93 • • • •

Montgomery • •

Tuscaloosa 03/97 • •

Alaska

Gambella 12/95 •

Juneau • •

Arizona

Globe (juvenile) • •

Peach Springs

(Hualapai tribe)

• •

Phoenix 03/92 • • • •

Sacaton (Gila

River Indian

Community)

• •

Scottsdale (Salt

River PimaMaricopa Indian

Community)

10/97 • •

Tucson (adult) 07/97 • •

Tucson (juvenile) • •

Yuma • •

Arkansas

Little Rock 06/94 • • • • •

California

Bakersfield 07/93 • • • • •

Chico 06/95 • • • • •

El Cajon • •

El Monte 07/94 • • • •

Eurekab 02/97 •

Fairfield 03/97 • •

(continued)

Page 129 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Fresno 03/96 • • •

Haywardb 07/97 •

Huntington Parkb 05/97 •

Indio • •

Inglewoodb 05/97 •

Kern CountyEast Municipalb02/95 •

Kern CountyNorth Municipalb07/94 •

Laguna Niguel 01/97 • • • •

Los Angeles

(adult)

05/94 • • • •

Los Angeles

(juvenile)

• •

Martinez • •

Modesto 06/95 • • • •

Oakland (adult/

diversion)

01/91 • • •

Oakland (adult/

postadjudication)

01/95 • • •

Pasadena 05/95 • • •

Porterville 04/96 • • •

Prosservillec 04/96

Redlandsb 04/95 •

Richmondb 01/97 •

Riverside 09/95 • • •

Roseville 09/95 • • • • •

Sacramento 03/96 • • • • •

Salinas 07/95 • • •

San Bernardino 11/94 • • • • •

San Diegob 03/97 •

San Francisco

(adult)

03/95 • •

San Francisco

(juvenile)

10/97 • •

San Jose (adult) 09/95 • • •

San Jose

(juvenile)d

08/96 •

San Luis Obispo • •

(continued)

Page 130 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

San Mateo 10/95 • • • •

Santa Ana (adult) 03/95 • • • •

Santa Ana

(juvenile)b

•

Santa Barbara 03/96 • • •

Santa Cruz

(juvenile)

• •

Santa Maria 03/96 • • •

Santa Monica 01/96 • • •

Santa Rosa 02/96 • • • • •

Stockton 07/95 • • • •

Tulare (juvenile) 10/95 • • • •

Tulare (adult) 05/96 • • •

Ukiah 09/96 • • • • •

Van Nuys

Regionalb

•

Ventura 04/95 • •

Visalia 03/96 • • • •

Vista 01/97 • •

Woodland 03/95 • • • •

Yosemite National

Park-Federal Court

01/95 • • •

Colorado

Denver 07/94 • • • • •

Connecticut

Bridgeport 07/97 • •

Hartford • •

New Haven 07/96 • •

Delaware

Dover 04/96 • • • •

Georgetown 04/96 • • • •

Wilmington

(adult)

10/93 • • • • •

Wilmington

(juvenile)

09/95 • •

District of Columbia

Washington

(adult)

07/94 • • •

(continued)

Page 131 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Washington

(juvenile)

• •

Florida

Bartow 12/94 • • • •

Crestview 10/93 • • • •

Daytonab 07/97 •

Fort Lauderdale

(adult)

06/91 • • • •

Fort Lauderdale

(juvenile)

10/97 • •

Gainesville 03/94 • • • •

Jacksonville 09/94 • •

Key West (adult) 05/93 • • • •

Key West

(juvenile)

04/96 • • • •

Marathon (adult) 06/95 • • • •

Marathon

(juvenile)

05/96 • • • •

Miami 06/89 • • • •

Moore Haven • •

Ocala 04/97 • •

Opa-Locka • •

Orlando (adult)b 06/97 •

Orlando (juvenile) 07/97 • •

Panama Cityb 01/97 •

Pensacola (adult) 06/93 • • • • •

Pensacola (parents) 02/96 • • •

Pensacola

(juvenile)

04/96 • • •

Plantation Key

(adult)

05/95 • • • •

Plantation Key

(juvenile)

05/96 • • • •

Sarasota 02/97 • •

Tallahassee 01/94 • • •

Tampa (adultdiversion)06/92 • • • •

Tampa (adultpostadjudication)07/94 • • •

Tampa (juvenile) 02/96 • • • •

(continued)

Page 132 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Viera 10/94 • • • •

Georgia

Atlanta 03/97 • •

Brunswick • •

Covington

(juvenile)

• •

Macon 01/94 • • • •

Guam

Agana (juvenile) • •

Hawaii

Honolulu 01/96 • • • •

Idaho

Boiseb •

Illinois

Bloomington • •

Chicago (adult)b e 05/89

Chicago

(neighborhood

model)b

02/97 •

Cook County

(juvenile)

10/96 • •

Decatur • •

Edwardsville 03/96 • • •

Kankakee (adult)b 02/97 •

Kankakee

(juvenile)

10/97 • •

Markham 03/94 • • •

Peoria • •

Rockford 10/96 • • •

Saint Charles • •

Indiana

Fort Wayne • •

Gary (juvenile) 06/95 • •

Gary (adult) 09/96 • • •

Lafayetteb 04/97 •

Lake County 09/96 • • • •

Lawrenceburg

(juvenile)

• •

South Bend 02/97 • •

(continued)

Page 133 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Terre Haute 10/96 • • • •

Iowa

Des Moines 09/96 • • • •

Kansas

Wichita 07/95 • • • •

Kentucky

Bowling Green 04/97 • •

Frankfort • •

Hickman • •

Louisville 07/93 • • • •

Louisiana

Alexandria • •

Baton Rouge

(adult)

01/95 • • • •

Baton Rouge

(juvenile)

• •

Franklin 01/97 • •

Gretna 06/97 • •

Harvey (juvenile) • •

Lafayette • •

Lake Charlesb 02/97 •

Monroe 01/98 • •

Monroe (Ouachita) • •

New Orleans • •

Oberlin • •

Thibodaux • •

Vidalia (juvenile) • •

Maine

Alfred • •

Maryland

Annapolisb •

Baltimore (adultDistrict)03/94 • • •

Baltimore (adultCircuit)10/94 • • •

Baltimore

(juvenileCircuit)

10/97 • •

(continued)

Page 134 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Montgomery

Countyb

•

Massachusetts

Dorchester 06/95 • • • •

Framingham

(juvenile)

• •

Franklin County

(family)b

01/97 •

Lawrence • •

Lynn • •

New Bedford 12/97 • •

Salem (juvenile) • •

Springfieldb •

Worcester 02/96 • • • •

Michigan

Detroit • •

Kalamazoo

(females)

06/92 • • • •

Kalamazoo (males)b 01/97 •

Kalamazoo

(juvenile)

• •

Mt. Clemens • •

Pontiacb 03/93 •

St. Joseph 10/91 • • • •

Minnesota

Minneapolis 01/97 • •

Mississippi

Gulfport • •

Jackson 07/97 • •

Jackson (juvenile)b •

Missouri

Benton (juvenile) • •

Claytonb •

Jefferson City

(juvenile)

• •

Kansas City 10/93 • • • •

Lexington 06/96 • • •

St. Louis 04/97 • •

Montana

(continued)

Page 135 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Browning

(Blackfeet tribe)

• •

Missoula

(juvenile)

10/96 • • • •

Nebraska

Omaha 04/97 • •

Nevada

Las Vegas (adult) 10/92 • • • • •

Las Vegas

(juvenile)

04/95 • • •

Reno (family) 08/94 • • • •

Reno (adult) 07/95 • • •

Reno (juvenile) 07/95 • •

New Jersey

Camden 04/96 • • •

Jersey City

(juvenile)

• •

Long Branch 07/97 • •

Newark (superior) 05/97 • •

Paterson • •

New Mexico

Albuquerque 09/95 • • • •

Aztec (juvenile) • •

Las Cruces (adultMagistrate)04/95 • • • •

Las Cruces (adultMunicipal)12/95 • • • •

Mesilla 04/95 • • • •

Santa Fe • •

Sunland Parkf 02/95 • • •

New York

Amherstb 09/96 •

Bronx • •

Brooklyn 06/96 • • • •

Buffalo 01/96 • • • •

Ithaca • •

Lackawannab 01/96 •

Manhattanb •

Niagara Falls • •

(continued)

Page 136 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Oswego • •

Queens • •

Rensselaer

(juvenile)

• •

Rochester 01/95 • • • • •

Rockland County • •

Suffolk County 09/96 • • • •

Syracuse 01/97 • •

North Carolina

Charlotte 02/95 • • • •

Cherokee (juvenile/

Cherokee tribe)

• •

Person/Caswell

Counties

07/96 • • •

Raleigh 05/96 • •

Warrenton 12/96 • • •

Wilmingtonb 05/97 •

Winston-Salem 06/96 • • •

Ohio

Akron 06/95 • • • •

Butler County 09/96 • • •

Canton • •

Chillicothe

(juvenile)

• •

Cincinnati 03/95 • • • •

Cleveland

(juvenile)

08/97 • •

Cleveland (adult) • •

Dayton (adult) 01/96 • •

Dayton (juvenile) • •

Mansfield • •

Saint Clairsville

(juvenile)

• •

Sandusky 04/96 • •

Toledo • •

Uhrichville • •

Youngstown • •

Oklahoma

(continued)

Page 137 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Canadian County

(juvenile)b

•

Chickashab •

Claremore • •

Drumright 05/97 • •

Elk City (juvenile) • •

Guthrie 03/95 • • •

Muskogee • •

Oklahoma City

(adult)b

•

Oklahoma City

(juvenile)

• •

Okmulgee

(Muscogee Nation)

• •

Pontotoc Countyb 07/97 •

Seminole 07/97 • •

Stillwater (adult) 03/95 • • •

Stillwater

(juvenile)

• •

Tahlequah • •

Tulsa 05/96 • • •

Oregon

Eugene 09/94 • • • •

Grants Pass 03/96 • • • •

Klamath Falls 03/96 • • •

McMinnvilleb •

Pendleton

(Confederated

Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian

Reservation)

• •

Portland 08/91 • • • •

Roseburg 01/96 • • • •

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia 03/97 • •

Pittsburghb •

Williamsport • •

York • •

Puerto Rico

(continued)

Page 138 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Arecibo 04/96 • • •

Carolina 04/96 • • •

Ponce 04/96 • • •

San Juan 08/97 • •

South Carolina

Charleston

(juvenile)

• •

Columbia 11/96 • • •

Lexington 07/96 • • • •

Orangeburgb •

South Dakota

Flandreau

(juvenile/Sioux

tribe)

• •

Lower Brule

(Sioux tribe)

• •

Pine Ridge

(Oglala Sioux tribe)

• •

Tennessee

Clarksville • •

Decaturville

(juvenile)

• •

Maryville • •

Memphisb 02/97 •

Nashville 05/97 • •

Texas

Austin 08/93 • • •

Beaumont 03/93 • • •

Conroe • •

Dallas 06/97 • •

Fort Worth 09/95 • • •

Houston • •

Utah

Provo • •

Salt Lake City

(juvenile)

10/95 • • • •

Salt Lake City

(adult)

07/96 • • •

Vernal • •

(continued)

Page 139 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IV 

Summary Data on the Status of Drug Court

Programs by Jurisdiction as of March 31,

1997

Start date

Status Funding sources

Jurisdiction Actual Planned Operating

About to

start

Being

planned

Studying

feasibility Federal

State/

Local Private Fees

Vermont

Montpelier • •

Newportb •

Virginia

Charlottesville 07/97 • •

Fredericksburg • •

Newport News • •

Richmond

(juvenile)

• •

Roanoke 09/95 • • •

Suffolk • •

Washington

Mount Vernon • •

Olympia • •

Port Angeles • •

Port Orchard • •

Seattle 08/94 • • • • •

Spokane 01/96 • • • •

Tacoma 10/94 • • • •

Wisconsin

Madison 06/96 • • • •

Milwaukee • •

Wyoming

Gillette • •

Sheridan • •

Total 161 32 112 10

aDrug court opened 12/95, closed 06/96.

bNo specific information on funding available.

cDrug court opened 04/96, closed 11/96.

dDrug court program or jurisdictional official reported no specific drug court program funding.

eDrug court opened 05/89, closed 05/94.

f

Drug court opened 02/95, closed 06/96.

Sources: GAO analysis of its survey of drug court programs and information obtained from federal

agencies and the Drug Court Clearinghouse.

Page 140 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Justice

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 141 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 142 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 143 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 144 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Justice

The following is GAO’s comment on DOJ’s letter dated July 9, 1997.

GAO Comment 1. DOJ commented that this report does not distinguish between the OJP

drug court discretionary grant program authorized by the Crime Act and

the two BJA formula and block grant programs. We have modified chapter

2 of our report to identify which grant programs are formula, block, or

discretionary grant programs. Since nearly 60 percent of the federal

support has been derived from federal grants other than those

administered under the Violent Crime Act, and formula and block grant

programs have contributed a significant portion (at least one-third) of the

federal funds, we have chosen to include them in the scope of our

recommendation intended to improve data collection and maintenance

and the scope of future impact evaluations of drug court programs. We

have modified our recommendation to consider any statutory limitations.

Page 145 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 146 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 147 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 148 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

See comment 1.

Page 149 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

The following is GAO’s comment on HHS’ memorandum dated July 10, 1997.

GAO Comment 1. In commenting, HHS referred to our next mandated annual report on

treatment-based drug courts. However, we were only mandated under

Title V of the 1994 Violent Crime Act to do a one-time study of the impact

and effectiveness of federal grants administered under this act.

Page 150 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VII 

Comments From the State Justice Institute

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Now pages 11, Fn 16, and

26.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Page 151 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VII 

Comments From the State Justice Institute

Page 152 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VII 

Comments From the State Justice Institute

Page 153 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VII 

Comments From the State Justice Institute

The following are GAO’s comments on SJI’s letter dated July 7, 1997.

GAO Comments 1. SJI commented that the report should describe it as a “federally funded

private organization.” We have modified the report to reflect this

comment.

2. SJI raised concerns with the presentation of SJI’s level of funding in

support of drug court program operations. We have revised our graphic

presentation of funding in chapter 2 to show SJI’s percentage of the federal

sources of funding and have further clarified that, with respect to drug

court programs, SJI has provided grants primarily in support of evaluation

studies of drug court programs.

Page 154 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the National Association of

Drug Court Professionals

Page 155 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the National Association of

Drug Court Professionals

Page 156 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the National Association of

Drug Court Professionals

Page 157 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 158 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

See comment 1.

Page 159 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

See comment 2.

Page 160 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Page 161 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

Page 162 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

The following are GAO’s comments on the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s

memorandum dated July 8, 1997.

GAO Comments 1. The Drug Court Clearinghouse suggested that we include commentary

in this report on the complexity and urgency of maintaining follow-up data

on program participants. In chapter 4 of this report, we provided

information on the complexity of collecting and maintaining follow-up

data on drug court program participants. We also recognized the need on

the part of the drug court community to work together to identify and take

steps to collect and maintain such data. In addition, we provided

information on legal and regulatory restrictions associated with accessing

confidential information, including a discussion of exceptions granted to

researchers, auditors, and evaluators.

2. The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it was unaware of any

drug courts that accept participants with current violent offense charges.

Information presented in chapter 3 of this report was derived directly from

drug court program officials responding to our survey questionnaire,

which in some cases included judges, program coordinators/directors,

and/or court administrators. The responses only indicate the programs’

policies regarding accepting violent offenders and not the extent to which

they actually have such participants, if any, in their programs.

3. The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it did not know of any

drug courts that permit individuals to participate who do not have

substance abuse problems. We have corrected chapter 3 of this report to

accurately reflect that 17 percent of the 134 drug court programs we

surveyed said that they would admit offenders without a substance

addiction.

4. The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that it believed the level of

funding contributions provided by HHS in support of drug court program

operations to be lower than we presented. Information presented in our

report was derived directly from HHS’ CSAT.

5. The Drug Court Clearinghouse suggested that this report be revised to

distinguish between drug courts that received federal support and those

that did not; and, of those drug courts that received federal support, those

that received funding under the Violent Crime Act and those that received

other federal funding. Because Violent Crime Act funded programs were

just emerging and relatively few studies, if any, had been completed at the

Page 163 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix IX 

Comments From the Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project

time of our review, we reached agreement with the Senate and House

Judiciary Committees to expand the objectives and scope of this review to

include an overview of growth, characteristics, and results of drug court

programs, including assessing all sources of funding.

6. The Drug Court Clearinghouse commented that Violent Crime Act

funded drug court programs may be in a better position to more readily

provide available data to support recidivism and sobriety goals than other

programs because they have had the benefit of more systematic planning,

training, and technical assistance. As noted in chapter 4, the results from

our survey showed no significant difference between the collection and

maintenance of data for Violent Crime Act funded drug court programs

and those receiving other sources of funding. Additionally, as we point out

in our conclusions presented in chapter 5, until post-program data on

program participants outcomes (criminal recidivism and/or relapse) are

made available for future impact evaluations, and/or until the scope of

impact evaluations includes post-program assessments, program officials,

researchers, and/or evaluators will not be able to adequately provide

Congress and other interested parties with answers on the overall impact

and effectiveness of drug court programs in comparison to other

traditional adjudication systems. Therefore, as we conclude and

recommend in chapter 5 of this report, it is essential that follow-up

information be collected and maintained not only for Violent Crime Act

funded programs but all federally funded drug court programs, regardless

of federal funding source.

Page 164 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Appendix X 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Daniel C. Harris, Assistant Director

Charles Michael Johnson, Evaluator-in-Charge

Barry J. Seltser, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

Douglas M. Sloane, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Stuart M. Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst

Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst

Thelma Jones, Writer-Editor

George H. Quinn, Computer Specialist

Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Advisor

Jena Sinkfield, Administrative Assistant

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Page 165 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Studies Used in GAO’s

Evaluation Synthesis

Broward County Commission Auditor’s Office. “Draft of a Performance

Review of the Drug Court Treatment Program.” Feb. 17, 1995.

Choices Unlimited Las Vegas. “Clark County Drug Court 42 Month

Summary.” Apr. 1996.

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, et al. “An Experimental Evaluation of Drug

Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County,

Arizona.” (Draft) National Institute of Justice. July 1996.

Drug Courts in Los Angeles County: Preliminary Data 1994-1996.

Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, County of Los

Angeles, and Los Angeles County Municipal Courts Planning and Research

Unit. Oct. 16, 1996.

Goldkamp, John S. and Doris Weiland. “Assessing the Impact of Dade

County’s Felony Drug Court.” (Final report) National Institute of Justice

Research Report. Aug. 1993.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A. Harmon. “Baltimore

City Drug Treatment Court Evaluation: A Short-term Outcome Evaluation

of Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Program.” University of Maryland

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. June 1996.

Granfield, Robert and Cindy Eby. “An Evaluation of the Denver Drug

Court: The Impact of a Treatment-Oriented Drug Offender System.”

University of Denver Department of Sociology. Jan. 1997.

Harrell, Adele and Shannon Cavanagh. “Preliminary Results From the

Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program for Drug

Felony Defendants.” Urban Institute. (Undated)

Jameson, Robert and N. Andrew Peterson. Evaluation of the First Year of

Operation of the Jackson County Drug Court. Ewing Marion Kauffman

Foundation. Apr. 1995.

Kelly, William R. “The Travis County Drug Diversion Court: A Preliminary

Outcome Evaluation.” Submitted to Travis County Pretrial Services.

Jan. 16, 1996.

Page 166 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

McNeece, C. Aaron and Charles M. Daly. “An Evaluation of the Broward

and Hillsborough Counties Drug Courts.” Florida State University.

Dec. 1993.

Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections. “STOP: Drug

Diversion Program/Program Impacts and Evaluation.” Apr. 1994.

Oberg, John C. “An Initial Evaluation and Analysis of the Ventura County

Drug Court Program.” (Draft) Apr. 1996.

“Preliminary Assessment of the S.T.O.P. Program of Court Supervised

Treatment and Deferred Prosecution for Eligible Drug Case Defendants,

Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon).” (Draft) American University

Courts Technical Assistance Project. Aug. 1994.

Reed, Emily A. SODAT-DELAWARE, INC.: Drug Court Division Program

Annual Report. Apr. 1995.

Roberts-Gray, Cindy. “Process Evaluation IV: SHORT’s Treatment

Component.” (Draft) Travis County, Texas. Apr. 1996.

“Santa Clara County Courts Treatment Court Nine Month Progress Report

(Sept. 11, 1995-June 11, 1996).” (Undated)

Smith, Barbara, Robert C. Davis, and Sharon R. Goretsky. “Strategies for

Courts to Cope With the Caseload Pressure of Drug Cases.” (Draft) The

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section. Oct. 1991.

Tauber, Jeffrey S. “An Evaluation of Oakland Drug Court After Three

Years, (Fast, Intensive, Report, Supervision and Treatment) FIRST.”

Presented to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Las

Vegas. Jan. 9, 1995.

Terry, W. Clinton, III. “Broward County Drug Court: A Preliminary

Report.” Nov. 1993.

Terry, W. Clinton, III. “Felony and Misdemeanor Rearrests of the First Year

Cohort of the Drug Court in Broward County, Florida.” (Draft) Mar. 1996.

Page 167 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Studies of Several

Drug Courts or

Summary Evaluations

Belenko, Steven. “Comparative Models of Treatment Delivery in Drug

Courts.” New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Mar. 1996.

Belenko, Steven. “Treatment-Oriented Drug Courts: Issues and

Challenges.” New York City Criminal Justice Agency. July 18, 1994.

Belenko, Steven and Tamara Dumanovsky. “Special Drug Courts.” Bureau

of Justice Assistance Program Brief. Nov. 1993.

Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy. Low-Level Drug Offenders:

Lessons From the Drug Courts. Nov. 1994.

Cavanagh, Suzanne and David Teasley. Drug Courts: An Overview. CRS

Report for Congress, 95-1155 GOV, Updated. Washington, D.C. Oct. 4,

1996.

Cavanagh, Suzanne and David Teasley. Drug Courts: An Overview. CRS

Report for Congress, 95-1155 GOV. Washington, D.C. Nov. 29, 1995.

Cooper, Caroline S. Drug Courts: An Overview of Operational

Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Vol. 1. BJA Drug Court

Resource Center. American University. June 1995.

Cooper, Caroline S. Drug Courts: 1997 Overview of Operational

Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Volume One: Preliminary

Report. Part One: General Program Information. OJP Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. American University.

Washington, D.C. May 1997.

Cooper, Caroline S. Drug Courts: 1997 Overview of Operational

Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Part Six: Drug Court

Treatment Services. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical

Assistance Project: American University. Washington, D.C. May 1997.

Cooper, Caroline S. Drug Courts: 1997 Overview of Operational

Characteristics and Implementation Issues, Preliminary Report. Executive

Summary Report. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project. American University. Washington, D.C. May 1997.

Cooper, Caroline S. “Expedited Drug Case Management.” BJA Courts

Bulletin. July 1994.

Page 168 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Cooper, Caroline S. and Joseph A. Trotter, Jr. Drug Case Management and

Treatment Intervention Strategies in the State and Local Courts. Vol. 1

(Revised). BJA/SSI Drug Case Management and Technical Assistance and

Training Project. American University. Oct. 1994.

Goldkamp, John S. “Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court

Movement.” A Working Paper of the First National Drug Court

Conference, December 1993. Oct. 1994.

Jacoby, Joan E., Edward C. Ratledge, and Heike P. Gramckow. “Expedited

Drug Case Management Programs: Issues for Program Development.”

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Oct. 1992.

Juvenile Drug Courts: Preliminary Report. Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project. American University. Oct. 15, 1996, and

May 1, 1997.

McColl, William D. “Baltimore City’s Drug Treatment Court: Theory and

Practice in an Emerging Field.” Maryland Law Review. Vol. 55, No. 2. 1996.

Prendergast, Michael L. and Thomas H. Maugh, II. “Drug Courts: Diversion

That Works.” Judges Journal. Vol. 34, No. 3. Summer 1995.

Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience, Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University,

Oct. 15, 1996, and May 15, 1997.

Tauber, Jeffrey S. “Drug Courts: A Judicial Manual.” CJER Journal.

Summer 1994.

Terry, W. Clinton, III. “Dedicated Drug Treatment Courts: A Collaborative

Model of Justice for Local Government.” (Draft) Aug. 1996.

Weitzman, Jamey H. “Drug Courts: A Manual for Planning and

Implementation.” The American Bar Association. (Undated)

What We Are Getting for Our Federal Drug Control Dollars?, Drug

Strategies. 1995.

Page 169 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Other Studies

Reviewed

Bailey, Cheryl and Ellen Talley. “Study of Drug Treatment Court.” State of

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Division

of Parole and Probation. Feb. 29, 1996.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Drug Night Courts: The Cook County

Experience. Aug. 1994.

Circuit Court, District Attorney and Public Defender Offices of Multnomah

County. “STOP (Sanction Treatment Opportunity Program) Multnomah

Circuit Court Drug Program: 18 Months of Progress and Change (Aug.

1991-Jan. 1993).” Mar. 11, 1993.

Cooper, Caroline. “Multnomah County STOP Program Evaluation.”

Memorandum to various individuals. American University Courts

Technical Assistance Project. July 5, 1994.

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Peter W. Greenwood. “Maricopa County’s

Drug Court: An Innovative Program for First-time Drug Offenders on

Probation.” Justice System Journal. Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-115. 1994.

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Sam Torres. A Process Evaluation of Los

Angeles County Drug Courts. Oct. 1996.

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper and Sam Torres. “An Evaluation of LA County

Drug Courts.” (Undated)

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, Susan Turner, and Peter Greenwood. “Drug

Court or Probation?: An Experimental Evaluation of Maricopa County’s

Drug Court.” RAND. June 1995.

Doerner, John P., Edwin T. Zimny, Jr., and Steven V. Berson. “Case Model

& Operations Review, Second Judicial District, Denver Drug Court.”

Aug. 16, 1996.

Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department

of Justice. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Jan. 1997.

Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department

of Justice. Drug Court Grant Program Fiscal Year 1996: Program

Guidelines and Application Kit. (Undated)

Page 170 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Finigan, Michael. “Social Outcomes & Cost Savings of Drug & Alcohol

Treatment in the State of Oregon.” Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Programs, Oregon Department of Human Resources. Feb. 1996.

Finn, Peter and Andrea K. Newlyn. “Miami’s ‘Drug Court’: A Different

Approach.” National Institute of Justice Program Focus. June 1993.

Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Housing and

Community Development, Bureau of Community Assistance. “Drug

Treatment Programs for Florida’s Offenders Funded by the Drug Control

and System Improvement Grant.” Aug. 1994.

Geis, Bill D. and Marilyn J. Powell. “A Pilot Study to Determine Effects of

Acupuncture on Psychiatric Symptoms and Craving Levels in a Drug Court

Division Program: Preliminary Findings.” Central Kansas City Mental

Health Services. (Undated)

Gish, George L. “Managing Drug Cases and Monitoring the Jail

Population.” Wayne County Circuit Court and Detroit Recorder’s Court.

Aug. 3, 1990.

Goldkamp, John S. “Challenges for Research and Innovation: When Is a

Drug Court Not a Drug Court?” In Judicial Change and Drug Treatment

Courts: Case Studies in Innovation. Sage Pub.: Beverly Hills, CA. 1997.

Goldkamp, John S. and Doris Weiland. “Assessing the Impact of Dade

County’s Felony Drug Court.” National Institute of Justice, Research in

Brief. Dec. 1993.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A. Harmon. “A

Short-term Outcome Evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment

Court Program.” Perspectives, pp. 33-38. Winter 1997.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Kris Coblentz, and Michele A. Harmon. “A

Short-term Outcome Evaluation of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment

Court Program.” (Draft) Jan. 1996.

Harkaway, Cary. “S.T.O.P. Drug Diversion Program Impacts.”

Memorandum to the Executive Director of InAct, Inc. Multnomah County

Department of Community Corrections. Mar. 3, 1994.

Page 171 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Harrell, Adele. “The Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Drug

Court Intervention Program.” Urban Institute. May 3, 1994.

Harrell, Adele and Barbara Smith. “Evaluation of the District of Columbia

Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus Group Interviews.”

Jan. 1996.

Harrell, Adele and Shannon Cavanagh. “Preliminary Results From the

Evaluation of the DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program for Drug

Felony Defendants.” Presented at the National Institute of Justice

Research in Progress Seminar. Washington, D.C. July 17, 1996.

Hepburn, John R., C. Wayne Johnston, and Scott Rogers. “Do Drugs: Do

Time: An Evaluation of the Maricopa County Demand Reduction

Program.” National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Oct. 1994.

Hooks, Susan Luck. “Findings and Recommendations for Improving

Communications Within McLeod Center’s TASC Program and Drug

Treatment Court.” (Undated)

Lehman, Jack and John Marr. Assessment of the Operations and

Treatment Services of the Nineteenth Judicial District Drug Court, East

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. June 1996.

Mahoney, Barry. “Working Paper: Drug Court Evaluations and Related

Research.” Prepared for the Drug Courts Office Program, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Mar. 1997.

Manley, Stephen V. and Lawrence F. Terry. Santa Clara County Courts

Treatment Court: Six Month Preliminary Report (September 11,

1995-March 11, 1996). May 1, 1996.

Marcus, Stephen A. Reflections of a Drug Court Judge - 1994. Los Angeles

Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District. Feb. 15, 1995.

McDevitt, Jack, et al. “The Boston Drug Diversion Court Eleven-Month

Tabulation of Client Statistics.” The Center for Criminal Justice Policy

Research. May 1996.

McNeece, C. Aaron and Joseph B. Byers. “A Follow-up Report on

Hillsborough County Drug Court Program Clients.” Florida Department of

Community Affairs. Dec. 1994.

Page 172 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

McNeece, C. Aaron and Joseph B. Byers. “Hillsborough County Drug Court

Two-Year (1995) Follow-up Study.” Florida Department of Community

Affairs. Nov. 1995.

Multnomah Courts. “STOP Cases Diverted (Aug. 1991-Aug./Sept.

1994) From OJIN.” Sept. 1994.

Office of Expedited Drug Case Management, New Castle County Superior

Court. “EDCM - Expedited Drug Case Management - A Report: A Progress

Report on Delaware’s Drug Court.” (Undated)

Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.

The National Drug Control Policy, 1997. Feb. 1997.

Office of the State Courts Administrator, Florida Supreme Court.

Treatment-Based Drug Courts...a Guide. (Undated)

“Operational Summary of the Expedited Drug Case Management Program,

Multnomah County, (Portland), Oregon.” Bureau of Justice Assistance

Expedited Drug Case Management (EDCM) Demonstration Project,

American University. (Undated)

Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Drugs and Crime Across America:

Police Chiefs Speak Out. Conducted for Police Foundation and Drug

Strategies. 1996.

Peters, Roger H. “Recommendations to Santa Clara County Drug

Treatment Court Regarding the Design of an Information System and

Evaluation Plan.” Oct. 1996.

Peterson, N. Andrew. Evaluation of the First Year of Operation of the

Jackson County Drug Court. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

Dec. 1994.

Roberts-Gray, Cindy. “Evaluation of the Engagement Process for Travis

County’s SHORT Program.” Travis County, Texas. Sept. 1995.

Roberts-Gray, Cindy. “Process Evaluation II: SHORT Program

August 1993-December 1994.” (Draft) Travis County, Texas. Mar. 1995.

Roberts-Gray, Cindy. “Process Evaluation: SHORT Program 1993-1994.”

(Revision) Travis County, Texas. Dec. 1994.

Page 173 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Schiff, Mara and W. Clinton Terry, III. “Predicting Graduation From

Broward County’s Dedicated Drug Treatment Court Based Upon

Individual Participant Characteristics.” Oct. 1996.

Smith, Barbara E., Robert C. Davis, and Sharon Goretsky. “An Assessment

of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts: Results From Data Collected in

Cook County and From a National Survey.” The American Bar Association.

May 3, 1992.

Smith, Barbara E., et al. “Drug Night Courts: How Feasible Are They?

Assessing Cook County’s Example.” Bulletin Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Vol. 1, Issue 1. July 1993.

Smith, Linda G. “An Evaluation of the 13th Judicial Circuit Drug Court and

Drug Division Programs.” (Undated)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. Planning Chart for

Treatment-Based Drug Courts. (Undated)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse Treatment

Planning Guide and Checklist for Treatment-Based Drug Courts. 1997.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. The Role and Current Status of

Patient Placement Criteria in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders.

Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series #13. 1995.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. Treatment Drug Courts:

Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal Case Processing.

Treatment Improvement Protocal (TIP) Series #23. 1996.

Tapia, Frank. “Summary of the FIRST Drug Diversion Program.” Presented

to the National Drug Court Conference. Miami. Dec. 1993.

Tauber, Jeffrey S. “The Importance of Immediate and Intensive

Intervention in a Court-Ordered Drug Rehabilitation Program: An

Evaluation of the Oakland Drug Court After Two Years (Fast, Intensive,

Report, Supervision and Treatment.” Presented to the President’s

Commission on Model State Drug Laws. Mar. 10, 1993.

Page 174 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Bibliography

Terry, W. Clinton, III. “Repeat Offenses of the First Year Cohort of

Broward County, Florida’s Drug Court.” Nov. 1995.

Weitzman, Jamey H. Drug Courts: A Judge’s Perspective. District Court of

Maryland for Baltimore City. (Undated)

Wells, Jennifer Dyer. Florida’s Drug Court: It’s Habit-Forming. Florida

Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) Court Operations.

(Undated)

Wilson, Deborah G. “Jefferson County Drug Court Program Evaluation,

1992-1995.” University of Louisville Department of Justice Administration.

Nov. 1995.

(188626) Page 175 GAO/GGD-97-106 Overview of Drug Courts
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100